Opinion ID: 42811
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Court’s Reliance on the PSR

Text: A district court is “not permitted to rely on a PSR’s characterization of a defendant’s prior offense in order to make a determination of whether it was a ‘drug trafficking offense.’” United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 274 (5th Cir. 2005). This follows the categorical approach outlined in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602 (1990), that requires sentencing courts to determine the nature of a prior conviction by examining the statute under which the conviction was attained. For statutes that contain both conduct that qualifies for an enhancement and conduct 3 that does not, courts can also examine charging instruments or jury instructions. Id. The district court erred by not reviewing the necessary documents. This error is plain. Gonzalez-Patino, however, fails to satisfy the third prong of plain error review. Gonzalez-Patino bears the burden of proving that the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). To meet that burden, he must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would have received a lesser sentence. Villegas, 404 F.3d at 364. Gonzalez-Patino fails to argue that his prior conviction was not for drug trafficking. While the statute at issue might include some conduct that is not “drug trafficking,”3 Gonzalez-Patino does not argue that his conviction was for that specific conduct. He does not contend that were the district court to review allowable evidence, such as the charging instrument, that this evidence would show that he had not committed a “drug trafficking” offense. Instead, Gonzalez-Patino simply shows that without the sixteenlevel enhancement he would have received a shorter sentence. This is not enough. United States v. Ochoa-Cruz, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 548421, at  (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 2006). Without at least arguing 3 Gonzalez-Patino argues that the statute at issue includes some conduct that would not qualify as “drug trafficking” under the Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, he contends that the statute covers “delivery” of a controlled substance, which includes merely “offering to sell” the substance. We assume without deciding that he is correct. 4 that the drug trafficking enhancement was ultimately wrong, Gonzalez-Patino cannot show that he would have received a lesser sentence. Id. Gonzalez-Patino has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. Therefore, his argument fails under plain error review.