Court Opinion

ID: 9940792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 16:01:06.662049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:47.011753
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1435     Document: 010111000934       Date Filed: 02/15/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         February 15, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                              No. 22-1435
  v.                                               (D.C. No. 1:20-CR-00101-CMA-1)
                                                               (D. Colo.)
  GONZALO RODRIGUEZ,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.**
                   _________________________________

       Gonzalo Rodriguez appeals his sentence for violating supervised-release

 conditions. He challenges the district court’s classification of his conspiracy

 conviction as a crime of violence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines

 (“U.S.S.G.” or the “Guidelines”). Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)

 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
       **
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument.

                                            1
Appellate Case: 22-1435    Document: 010111000934       Date Filed: 02/15/2024    Page: 2

                                  I. BACKGROUND

       Mr. Rodriguez admitted to five violations of his supervised-release conditions.

 The district court determined his sentence using the grade of the most serious

 violation, as defined in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).

       Of Mr. Rodriguez’s five violations, two were Grade B violations and two were

 Grade C violations. The remaining violation—the subject of this appeal—was a

 conviction for conspiracy to commit the Colorado offense of felony menacing. The

 violation report classified it as Grade A.

       Mr. Rodriguez objected to the classification on two grounds. First, he argued

 that to be a Grade A violation under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1, the conspiracy offense had to

 be a crime of violence as defined in Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2.1 And

 he argued that relying on Application Note 1 would be inconsistent with Kisor v.

 Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019). Second, Mr. Rodriguez argued that “Colorado

       1
         U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 defines a Grade A violation as:
              [C]onduct constituting (A) a federal, state, or local offense
              punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year
              that (i) is a crime of violence, (ii) is a controlled substance
              offense, or (iii) involves possession of a firearm or
              destructive device . . . ; or (B) any other federal, state, or
              local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment
              exceeding twenty years.
 Application Note 2 to § 7B1.1 comments that “crime of violence” is defined in
 § 4B1.2. Application Note 1 to § 4B1.2 formerly commented that “crime of
 violence” “include[d] the offenses of aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting
 to commit such offenses.” After the district court sentenced Mr. Rodriguez, the text
 of Application Note 1 was moved to the text of the Guideline. U.S.S.G.
 § 4B1.2(d) (2023).

                                              2
Appellate Case: 22-1435     Document: 010111000934      Date Filed: 02/15/2024    Page: 3

 conspiracy” could not qualify as “conspiracy” under Application Note 1 because

 Colorado applies a unilateral approach to conspiracy instead of federal law’s bilateral

 approach, thus criminalizing more conduct. ROA, Vol. I at 30-31. He argued that if

 he prevailed on either argument, his conspiracy conviction should be reduced to a

 Grade B violation.

       The Government’s written response did not discuss Mr. Rodriguez’s Kisor

 argument. Instead, it argued that the “‘enumerated offense’” of “conspiracy” “‘refers

 to the generic, contemporary meaning of the offense,’” which is understood by

 looking to federal law as well as “[s]tate[] criminal codes” and “prominent secondary

 sources.” Id. at 36-37 (quoting United States v. Martinez-Cruz, 836 F.3d 1305, 1309

 (10th Cir. 2016)). It urged that under “the definition of conspiracy now used in the

 criminal codes of most States,” “Conspiracy to Commit Felony Menacing is a crime

 of violence.” Id. at 38.

       The district court adopted the Government’s position and did not discuss

 Mr. Rodriguez’s Kisor argument. ROA, Vol. III at 7-8; see also id. at 16-17.

 Because it held his highest-grade violation was Grade A, his Guidelines

 recommendation was 24 months.2 The court sentenced Mr. Rodriguez to 12 months

 and one day in prison, followed by two years of supervised release.

       Mr. Rodriguez timely appealed.

       2
        Mr. Rodriguez’s Guidelines recommendation would have been higher, but it
 was limited to 24 months based on his original conviction. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);
 ROA, Vol. I at 21.

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-1435      Document: 010111000934       Date Filed: 02/15/2024     Page: 4

                                    II. DISCUSSION

       In his brief, Mr. Rodriguez does not address and therefore has waived a

 challenge to the district court’s holding regarding the scope of the term “conspiracy.”

 He instead “presses [only] the position that, in light of Kisor, his conspiracy

 conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence under the plain text of § 4B1.2,

 and that [A]pplication [N]ote 1 cannot be used to classify [conspiracy] as a crime of

 violence.” Aplt. Br. at 7.3 Under our precedent, Kisor does not apply to Guidelines

 commentary, so we affirm.

       “We review the district court’s application of the . . . Guidelines for abuse of

 discretion.” United States v. Rodriguez, 945 F.3d 1245, 1248 (10th Cir. 2019).

 “[W]e review questions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error . . . .”

 Id. at 1249. “An error of law is per se an abuse of discretion.” United States v.

 Lopez-Avila, 665 F.3d 1216, 1219 (10th Cir. 2011).

       In holding that Colorado conspiracy fell under the “enumerated offense” of

 conspiracy in the Guidelines, the district court followed Application Note 1 to

 § 4B1.2 and implicitly rejected Mr. Rodriguez’s Kisor argument. ROA, Vol. III at 8.

 That was not legal error.

       In United States v. Maloid, 71 F.4th 795 (10th Cir. 2023), we held that Kisor

 did not alter the holding in Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993), that

       3
          Mr. Rodriguez notes in his brief that “[t]his issue is currently foreclosed in
 this circuit. It is raised solely for preservation purposes.” Aplt. Br. at 2.

                                             4
Appellate Case: 22-1435    Document: 010111000934         Date Filed: 02/15/2024    Page: 5

 “commentary in the Guidelines Manual governs unless it [(1)] runs afoul of the

 Constitution or a federal statute or [(2)] is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the

 guideline provision it addresses.” Maloid, 71 F.4th at 798. “We are bound by th[is]

 precedent . . . absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by

 the Supreme Court.” In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir. 1993). Because

 Mr. Rodriguez does not argue that Stinson’s exceptions should apply here and

 because this court has held that Kisor did not alter Stinson’s holding, the district

 court did not abuse its discretion by following Application Note 1 to hold

 Mr. Rodriguez’s conspiracy offense was a crime of violence.

                                   III. CONCLUSION

       We affirm.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             5