Court Opinion

ID: 9374404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 21:00:32.360699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.890116
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4296      Doc: 41         Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 9

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4296

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MAXIMILIANO GABRIEL QUERIAPA, a/k/a Bryce Nicholas Martinez-Esparza, a/k/a
        Bryce Nicholas Martinez, a/k/a Maximiliano Crecencio Gabriel Queriapa, a/k/a Max
        Gabriel-Queriapa, a/k/a Max Gabriel Queriapa, a/k/a Maximiliano Gabriel, a/k/a Max
        Gabriel, a/k/a Maximiliano Crecencio Gabriel-Queriapa, a/k/a Maximiliano C. Gabriel
        Queriapa, a/k/a Gabriel Q. Crecencio,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cr-00105-MR-WCM-1)

        Submitted: February 6, 2023                                   Decided: February 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Jared P. Martin, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH
        CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States
        Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4296      Doc: 41         Filed: 02/21/2023    Pg: 2 of 9

        STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4296       Doc: 41         Filed: 02/21/2023      Pg: 3 of 9

        PER CURIAM:

               Maximiliano Gabriel Queriapa appeals his 46-month sentence imposed following

        his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to a felony conviction, in

        violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). Queriapa challenges the procedural reasonableness

        of his sentence, arguing that the district court improperly calculated his Sentencing

        Guidelines range and failed to consider some of his nonfrivolous arguments for a

        downward-variant sentence. We conclude that the district court’s sentencing explanation

        was inadequate, vacate Queriapa’s sentence, and remand for resentencing. 1

               We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

        142 S. Ct. 625 (2021). In reviewing for procedural reasonableness, we ensure that the

        district court “committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating

        the Guidelines range . . . or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

               “In assessing [a defendant’s] challenge to the district court’s Guidelines application,

        we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” United States v.

        Boyd, 55 F.4th 272, 276 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “[w]hen

        a criminal defendant presents a sentencing issue that was not properly preserved in the

        district court, we review the issue for plain error only.” United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela,

               1
                The district court also imposed an eight-month revocation sentence. Queriapa does
        not appeal that judgment.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4296        Doc: 41         Filed: 02/21/2023       Pg: 4 of 9

        792 F.3d 416, 422 (4th Cir. 2015). “To satisfy plain error review, the defendant must

        establish that: (1) there is a sentencing error; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects

        his substantial rights.” Id. Even then, we will only cure the error if it “seriously affects

        the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation

        marks omitted).

               Queriapa first argues, as he did in the district court, that criminal history points

        should not have been assigned to his 2014 North Carolina conviction for “Driving While

        Impaired, Aggravated Level 1,” (“the 2014 conviction”) and his 2019 federal conviction

        for using false and fictitious documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546 (“the 2019

        conviction”). This is so, Queriapa contends, because the 2014 and 2019 convictions were

        also used to enhance his offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)

        (2018). Queriapa acknowledges that the commentary to the illegal-reentry Guideline

        provides that “[a] conviction taken into account under subsection (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) is

        not excluded from consideration of whether that conviction receives criminal history points

        pursuant to Chapter 4, Part A (Criminal History).” USSG § 2L1.2 cmt. n.3. But he argues

        that the district court should not have deferred to that commentary because the criminal-

        history and relevant-conduct Guidelines unambiguously provide that such convictions

        cannot be counted.

               We disagree. Queriapa’s inconsistency argument relies on the commentary to the

        criminal-history Guideline.      Accordingly, he fails to show that § 2L1.2 cmt. n.3 is

        inconsistent with the text of the Guideline. Thus, he has not given us reason to diverge

        from our holding that a single prior conviction may be used to increase both the offense

                                                        4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4296       Doc: 41        Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 5 of 9

        level and the criminal history score for an illegal-reentry offense. See United States v.

        Crawford, 18 F.3d 1173, 1178–80 (4th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Cordova-

        Lopez, 34 F.4th 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2022) (concluding that “Application Note 3 merely

        describes what the Guidelines’ text and structure would unambiguously require even in its

        absence”).

               Next, Queriapa argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred by

        applying an eight-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B).            The illegal-reentry

        Guideline instructs courts to enhance the defendant’s offense level if “the defendant

        engaged in criminal conduct” prior to being “ordered deported or ordered removed from

        the United States for the first time,” USSG § 2L1.2(b)(2), and if “the defendant engaged in

        criminal conduct” after being “ordered deported or ordered removed from the United States

        for the first time,” USSG § 2L1.2(b)(3). Here, the probation officer concluded that

        Queriapa was first deported in May 2017 and that he engaged in criminal conduct prior to

        deportation (the 2014 conviction) and engaged in criminal conduct after deportation

        (the 2019 conviction). Accordingly, the probation officer enhanced Queriapa’s offense

        level by eight for the 2014 conviction, “a conviction for a felony offense (other than an

        illegal reentry offense) for which the sentence imposed was two years or more,” USSG

        § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B), and enhanced his offense level by four for the 2019 conviction, “a

        conviction for any other felony offense (other than an illegal reentry offense),” USSG

        § 2L1.2(b)(3)(D).

              Queriapa contends that the district court plainly erred by applying the

        § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B) enhancement based on the 2014 conviction because he was not ordered

                                                    5
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4296      Doc: 41          Filed: 02/21/2023    Pg: 6 of 9

        deported or removed for the first time in 2017 but in 2013, when he did not voluntarily

        depart as directed by the immigration judge and the alternate order of removal

        automatically took effect. The Government argues that there was no plain error because it

        was not clear or obvious from the record before the district court at sentencing when the

        alternate order of removal took effect. Queriapa replies that the factual basis for the plea

        and the presentence report (PSR) refute the Government’s argument that there was

        ambiguity in the record as to when he was first ordered deported or removed. He also

        moves to supplement the record with a portion of his A-File, which, he argues, would

        establish that he was first ordered deported or removed long before the 2014 conviction.

        The Government opposes that motion. 2

               We deny Queriapa’s motion to supplement the record. The A-File does not satisfy

        the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2), and, in any event, the A-File simply affirms

        information that is already in the record.

               While it would be reasonable to infer that the alternate order of removal took effect

        long before the 2014 conviction, Queriapa has to prove that any error was clear or obvious.

        See United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503, 516 (4th Cir. 2013) (“The term plain error

        is synonymous with clear or obvious error.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And we

        conclude that it was not clear or obvious from the information in the PSR when the alternate

        order of removal took effect. Moreover, “the defendant has an affirmative duty to make a

               2
                We granted Queriapa’s motion to file a supplemental appendix containing the A-
        File documents, but we deferred ruling on his motion to supplement the record.

                                                     6
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4296       Doc: 41        Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 7 of 9

        showing that the information in the [PSR] is unreliable, and articulate the reasons why the

        facts contained therein are untrue or inaccurate.” United States v. Fowler, ___ F.4th ___,

        ___, No. 19-4178, 2023 WL 310446, at *5 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2023) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). And, absent “such a showing, the government meets its burden of proving

        those facts by a preponderance of the evidence, and the district court is free to adopt the

        findings of the [PSR] without more specific inquiry or explanation.” Id. (internal quotation

        marks omitted). Accordingly, Queriapa had an affirmative duty to establish that the

        probation officer’s finding that he was first ordered deported or removed in May 2017 was

        incorrect. Because he did not do so, the district court was free to adopt the probation

        officer’s finding and did not plainly err by applying the eight-level enhancement under

        § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B).

               Queriapa’s final challenge is to the adequacy of the district court’s explanation. “A

        district court is required to provide an individualized assessment based on the facts before

        the court, and to explain adequately the sentence imposed to allow for meaningful appellate

        review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” United States v. Lewis, 958 F.3d

        240, 243 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). When explaining the sentence,

        the “district court must address or consider all non-frivolous reasons presented for

        imposing a different sentence and explain why it has rejected those arguments.” United

        States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). “The explanation is

        sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the defendant’s particular history and

        characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but as part of its analysis of the

        statutory factors and in response to defense counsel’s arguments for a downward

                                                     7
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4296      Doc: 41         Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 8 of 9

        departure.” United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). However, when the court has fully addressed the defendant’s “central

        thesis” in mitigation, it need not “address separately each supporting data point marshalled

        on its behalf.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 214 (4th Cir. 2020).

               While “it is sometimes possible to discern a sentencing court’s rationale from the

        context surrounding its decision,” we “may not guess at the district court’s rationale,

        searching the record for statements by the Government or defense counsel or for any other

        clues that might explain a sentence.”       United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 745

        (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor may we “assume that the court has

        silently adopted arguments presented by a party.” Nance, 957 F.3d at 214 (internal

        quotation marks omitted). However, “in a routine case, where the district court imposes a

        within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy.” United

        States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 174–75 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). Ultimately, “[t]he adequacy of the sentencing court’s explanation depends on

        the complexity of each case and the facts and arguments presented.” United States v.

        Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Our review of the sentencing transcript revealed that the district court considered

        some of Queriapa’s arguments in mitigation. But it is not “patently obvious” that the

        district court considered Queriapa’s arguments that: (1) he reentered the United States

        because he was his parents’ caretaker; (2) his father’s death served as a deterrent to

        engaging in additional criminal conduct; and (3) his Guidelines range did not reflect his

        true culpability because his prior convictions enhanced his offense level and criminal

                                                     8
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4296      Doc: 41         Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 9 of 9

        history score. United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 521 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation

        marks omitted).

               We further conclude that the Government has not established that those omissions

        were harmless. The district court’s primary motivations for imposing a within-Guidelines

        sentence were to promote respect for the law, specific deterrence, and general deterrence,

        and at least the latter two of the omitted arguments related to those goals. Moreover, the

        fact that the district court rejected Queriapa’s legal objection to the Guidelines does not

        mean that the court could omit discussion of his equitable objection as part of his argument

        for a downward-variant sentence. See Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d at 152 (concluding that

        district court reversibly erred by “address[ing] only the legal objection to the criminal

        history calculation” and omitting discussion of “the defendant’s equitable argument for a

        variance”—that his criminal history score “over-represents his actual criminal history and

        leads to a sentencing range that is too high in comparison to others”).

               Because the district court’s failure to address some of Queriapa’s key mitigating

        arguments was not harmless, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                    VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                     9