Court Opinion

ID: 9804574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:58:32.079854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:16:27.543676
License: Public Domain

JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority’s analysis and conclusion regarding the criminal history points calculation. However, I would also vacate the sentence because the district court erred in imposing the 16-level crime-of-violence enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). The evidence the government proffered to demonstrate the existence of Mazarego-Salazar’s prior conviction lacks sufficient indicia of reliability to support its accuracy. We have previously permitted the use of abstracts and certificates of disposition to establish the existence of a prior conviction, but our precedent has never gone so far as to permit the establishment of a predicate conviction on the basis of a document as lacking in formality as that presented here. See, e.g., United States v. Moreno-Florean, 542 F.3d 445, 449 & n. 1 (5th Cir.2008) (allowing the use of a California abstract of judgment to establish a prior conviction because an abstract of judgment “serves as ‘the process and authority for carrying the judgment and sentence into effect.’ ”) (quoting People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 303, 26 P.3d 1040, 1043 (2001)); United States v. Neri-Hernandes, 504 F.3d 587, 592 (5th Cir.2007) (allowing the use of a Certificate of Disposition to establish a prior conviction because, under New York law, a Certificate of Disposition is a judicial record courts regularly consider when deciding on sentence enhancements).
The government — the party who bears the burden of proof — presented no evidence of what, precisely, this document is, who created it, or what it is used for in New York courts. The government has offered no evidence that this document is the type of document that would be accepted in a New York court as evidence of a prior conviction, or that would warrant any degree of deference or recognition in New York courts.1 Accordingly, upon resen-tencing, I would require the government to come forward with reliable evidence to establish the conviction in support of the 16-level enhancement.

. While there does appear to be a judge’s signature in the document stamp, nothing in the form suggests that the signature relates to content outside the stamp itself. The majority's view is that the signature applies to the entire form, but the government offered no evidence to support this view.