United States v. Francisco Pineda-Goigochea , 640 F. App'x 851 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-12837 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12837
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00047-LMM-JSA-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO PINEDA-GOIGOCHEA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 13, 2016)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12837 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 2 of 6
Francisco Pineda-Goigochea appeals his 36-month sentence, imposed below
the advisory guideline range, after he pled guilty to illegally re-entering the United
States after having previously been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)
and (b)(2). After reviewing the record and considering the parties’ briefs, we find
that the district court did not err in enhancing Pineda-Goigochea’s offense level
based on his prior conviction for cocaine trafficking in Georgia. Despite Pineda-
Goigochea’s arguments to the contrary, controlling precedent holds that the
Georgia crime of drug trafficking is a qualifying predicate offense for sentence
enhancement under § 2L1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, we affirm
Pineda-Goigochea’s sentence.
I.
We review de novo whether a defendant’s prior conviction constitutes a
“drug trafficking offense” under § 2L1.2. See United States v. Aguilar-Ortiz, 450
F.3d 1271, 1272 (11th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to § 2L1.2, a base offense level of
eight applies to defendants convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a).
Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) increases the guideline range by 16 levels if the defendant
was removed after a conviction for a “drug trafficking offense for which the
sentence imposed exceeded 13 months.”
The Application Notes to § 2L1.2 define a “drug trafficking offense” to
mean “an offense under federal, state, or local law that prohibits the manufacture,
2
Case: 15-12837 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 3 of 6
import, export, distribution, or dispensing of, or offer to sell a controlled substance
. . . or the possession of a controlled substance . . . with intent to manufacture,
import, export, distribute, or dispense.” Id. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iv). In Georgia, a
person who “knowingly sells, manufactures, delivers, or brings into [Georgia] or
who is knowingly in possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine . . . commits the
felony offense of trafficking in cocaine.” O.C.G.A. § 16-13-31(a)(1) (2003)
(amended 2012).
II.
On appeal, Pineda-Goigochea, who has a prior conviction for cocaine
trafficking in Georgia, argues that his guideline offense level should not have been
increased by 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), despite our holding
to the contrary in United States v. Madera-Madera, 333 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir.
2003). In support, he avers that Madera-Madera has been abrogated by the
Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1678
(2013). He also asserts the Madera-Madera panel did not use the categorical
approach required by Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600, 110 S. Ct. 2143,
2159 (1990), and related cases. We address each argument in turn.
A. Moncrieffe Does Not Abrogate Madera-Madera
In Madera-Madera, we considered whether a conviction for possession of
methamphetamine under Georgia’s drug trafficking statute constituted a “drug
3
Case: 15-12837 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 4 of 6
trafficking offense” under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). 333 F.3d at 1229–30. We examined
Georgia’s three-tiered statutory scheme for punishing drug crimes and determined
that Georgia considered “drug trafficking . . . a more serious offense than either
simple possession or possession with intent to distribute.” Id. at 1231–32. We also
reasoned that the Georgia statute created a dividing line of 28 grams between
possession, possession with the intent to distribute, and drug trafficking that
recognized that someone with possession of such a significant quantity of drugs
planned on distributing “and thereby ‘trafficking’ those drugs.” Id. at 1232.
Lastly, we rejected the defendant’s argument that § 2L1.2’s definition of “drug
trafficking offense” required the statutory element of intent to distribute be actually
present in the language of the statute of conviction, because the Sentencing
Commission chose not to define a “drug trafficking offense” by its elements, but
instead “by the type of conduct prohibited by the state statute.” Id. at 1233
(internal quotation marks omitted).
In Moncrieffe, the Supreme Court addressed whether a conviction under a
Georgia statute that made it a crime to possess marijuana with intent to distribute
met the definition of a drug trafficking aggravated felony under the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), which defines the term as any
drug trafficking offense listed in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2). See 133 S. Ct. at 1683–84.
The Court held that, when looking at whether a state conviction qualifies as an
4
Case: 15-12837 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 5 of 6
aggravated felony under the INA, a court must determine whether the state offense
is comparable to an offense listed under the INA. See id. at 1684. Because the
conviction at issue could correspond to either a federal felony or misdemeanor, the
conviction did not “necessarily” involve facts that corresponded to an offense
punishable as a felony and did not qualify as an aggravated felony. Id. at 1686–87
(internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Supreme Court’s Moncrieffe
decision does not abrogate or supplant Madera-Madera, because it merely
determined that Georgia possession of marijuana offense was a misdemeanor and,
therefore, could not be an “aggravated felony” under the INA.
B. Madera-Madera Comports with Taylor
Pineda-Goigochea next avers that, even if Moncrieffe did not supplant
Madera-Madera, that decision is nevertheless not good law because it did not use
the categorical approach required by the Supreme Court in Taylor, 495 U.S. 575,
110 S. Ct. 2143, and subsequent cases developing that approach. However,
Madera-Madera did use, in essence, the categorical approach by performing an
analysis of the elements of the Georgia drug trafficking statute. The reasoning,
therefore, remains sound. Importantly, the reasoning in Madera-Madera has been
used by this court in subsequent cases analyzing similar sentencing enhancement
issues. For instance, in United States v. James, using the categorical approach, we
determined that the defendant’s prior conviction under Florida state law for
5
Case: 15-12837 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 6 of 6
“trafficking in cocaine by possession of between 200 and 400 grams of cocaine,”
was a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. See 430 F.3d
1150, 1151–52, 1154 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We
compared the case to Madera-Madera and concluded that the reasoning therein
was controlling. Id. at 1154–55.
III.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in enhancing Pineda-Goigochea’s
offense level based on his prior conviction for cocaine trafficking in Georgia
because we previously held in Madera-Madera that the Georgia cocaine
trafficking offense is a qualifying predicate offense under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).
Madera-Madera has not been abrogated or otherwise overruled, and it is still
controlling precedent. See United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir.
2008) (“[A] prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and
until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court
or by this court sitting en banc.”). Thus, the sentencing decision of the district
court is hereby
AFFIRMED.
6