Opinion ID: 4681319
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing

Text: Guidelines Figueroa-Beltran submits that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court declined to apply proposed amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, and the district court failed to adequately consider FigueroaBeltran’s particular history. In 2016, the Sentencing Commission proposed amendments to illegal reentry offenses under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, including: a new tiered enhancement based on prior convictions for illegal reentry offenses under 8 U.S.C. 1253, 1325(a), or 1326. A defendant who has one or more felony illegal reentry convictions will receive an increase of 4 levels. Illegal reentry offense is defined in the commentary to include all convictions under 8 U.S.C. 1253 (failure to depart after an order of removal) and 1326 (illegal reentry), as well as second or subsequent illegal entry convictions under § 1325(a). A defendant who has two or more misdemeanor illegal entry convictions under 8 U.S.C. 1325(a) will receive an increase of 2 levels. Notice of submission to Congress of amendments to the sentencing guidelines effective November 1, 2016, United States Sentencing Commission, 81 Fed. Reg. 27262, 27272 (May 5, 2016). The Sentencing Commission explained that: UNITED STATES V. FIGUEROA-BELTRAN 21 The amendment reduces somewhat the level of enhancements for criminal conduct occurring before the defendant’s first order of deportation and adds a new enhancement for criminal conduct occurring after the defendant’s first order of deportation. It also responds to concerns that prior convictions for illegal reentry offenses may not be adequately accounted for in the existing guideline by adding an enhancement for prior illegal reentry and multiple prior illegal entry convictions. Id. We have recognized that “[a] sentencing court . . . has the discretion to grant a variance from the Guidelines after promulgation but before adoption of a proposed amendment.” United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 917 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, “[t]hat the Commission has promulgated a not-yet-adopted amendment that is very likely to be adopted and that would result in reduced Guidelines ranges does not render a district court’s failure to grant a variance substantively unreasonable.” Id. at 918 (citation omitted). The district court, therefore, was not compelled to apply the anticipated amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 in fashioning a substantively reasonable sentence. See id. (“[W]here an amendment has been promulgated but has not yet been adopted, district courts are not required to consider that amendment in the § 3553 analysis . . .”) (citation omitted) (emphasis in the original). 22 UNITED STATES V. FIGUEROA-BELTRAN