United States v. Jose Guzman-Alvarado , 457 F. App'x 296 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-4217
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOSE GUZMAN-ALVARADO, a/k/a Jose Alvarado,
    Defendant -   Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Robert J. Conrad,
    Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00139-RJC-1)
    Submitted:   November 22, 2011              Decided:   December 12, 2011
    Before WILKINSON and    GREGORY,    Circuit     Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Haakon Thorsen, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Richard Lee Edwards,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jose Guzman-Alvarado pled guilty to unlawful reentry
    of a deported alien, in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a), (b)(2)
    (2006),       and     was   sentenced    to       a    term    of   forty-six       months’
    imprisonment.          Guzman-Alvarado appeals his sentence, contending
    that the district court plainly erred when it added a 16-level
    increase in his offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
    Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2010), on the ground that he had
    previously been deported after being convicted of a crime of
    violence.          We affirm.
    The enhancement Guzman-Alvarado challenges was based
    on his prior conviction, pursuant to an Alford * plea, of four
    counts of indecent liberties with a child, in violation of 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1
       (2009).          Guzman-Alvarado        contends      that
    (1) the district court erred in failing to conduct an analysis
    of   the      indecent      liberties    statute           under    Shepard    v.    United
    States, 
    544 U.S. 13
     (2005), to determine whether the statute
    categorically qualified as a crime of violence; (2) the statute
    is     not    categorically       a     crime         of    violence;    and    (3)     his
    conviction, pursuant to an Alford plea, could not be used to
    support the enhancement because he did not admit any facts.
    *
    North Carolina v. Alford, 
    400 U.S. 25
     (1970).
    2
    Generally, whether a prior conviction is a crime of
    violence is a legal issue that is reviewed de novo.                                    United
    States    v.    Diaz-Ibarra,       
    522 F.3d 343
    ,       347    (4th    Cir.       2008).
    Because     Guzman-Alvarado         failed       to     challenge          the    16-level
    enhancement in the district court, he must show plain error.
    United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 732-37 (1993) (unpreserved
    error may be corrected only if error occurred, that was plain,
    and that affects substantial rights, and if failure to correct
    error would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public
    reputation of judicial proceedings); United States v. Lynn, 
    592 F.3d 572
    , 576-77 (4th Cir. 2010).
    Guzman-Alvarado      relies       on    our    decisions          in    United
    States v. Vann, ___ F.3d ___, 
    2011 WL 4793230
     (4th Cir. Oct. 11,
    2011) (en banc) (Vann II)             (using modified categorical approach
    to determine that defendant’s prior North Carolina convictions
    for    indecent    liberties       were   not    “violent          felonies”      under    
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e) (2006)), and United States v. Alston, 
    611 F.3d 219
     (4th Cir. 2010) (applying modified categorical approach to
    determine       that    defendant’s       prior        Alford      plea     to    Maryland
    second-degree assault did not establish a “violent felony” under
    
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)).         Neither case is helpful to him.
    The term “crime of violence” is defined in Application
    Note    1(B)(iii)      to   USSG   § 2L1.2       and    encompasses        a     number    of
    specific offenses, including “sexual abuse of a minor.”                               We have
    3
    held that “sexual abuse of a minor” need not be a crime that
    requires the use, or threatened use, of physical force against
    another, but must be a crime that prohibits the “physical or
    nonphysical       misuse    or     maltreatment      of   a    minor     for    a   purpose
    associated with sexual gratification.”                    Diaz-Ibarra, 
    522 F.3d at 350, 352
     (internal quotation marks omitted) (construing Georgia
    felony   attempted        child     molestation      as    a    “crime    of    violence”
    under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)).
    To     determine         whether       Guzman-Alvarado’s               indecent
    liberties conviction was a crime of violence as defined in USSG
    § 2L1.2,     we    may     apply    the   categorical          approach      set     out    in
    Taylor v. United States, 
    495 U.S. 575
     (1990), unless the statute
    proscribes a number of offenses, not all of which qualify as
    crimes of violence.          The analysis involves deciding whether “the
    conduct criminalized by the statute, including the most innocent
    conduct, qualifies as a ‘crime of violence.’”                       Diaz-Ibarra, 
    522 F.3d at 348
    .         To find otherwise, “there must be a realistic
    possibility, not a theoretical possibility, that the state would
    apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the definition
    of   crime   of    violence.”          
    Id.
           (internal     quotation       marks       and
    citation omitted).          With respect to 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1
    ,
    we   conclude      that    there     is   no     realistic      probability          that    a
    violation    of    the     statute    could      occur    without      the     “misuse      or
    maltreatment of a minor for a purpose associated with sexual
    4
    gratification.”               Diaz-Ibarra,         
    522 F.3d at 352
         (internal
    quotation      marks          and   citation        omitted).           Therefore,          the
    categorical approach is sufficient to establish that a violation
    of 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1
     constitutes a crime of violence
    for purposes of USSG § 2L1.2.
    Guzman-Alvarado’s             reliance       on    Vann    II    is     misplaced
    because Vann II does not address the term “crime of violence” as
    it is defined in USSG § 2L1.2.                     Rather, Vann II held that the
    North Carolina indecent liberties statute, viewed in light of
    Begay v. United States, 
    553 U.S. 137
     (2008), proscribes both
    violent and non-violent felonies, as the term “violent felony”
    is   defined    in       
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(2)(B).             Assuming,          without
    deciding, that the modified categorical approach was the correct
    one, Vann II ultimately determined that the government had not
    produced    Shepard-approved              documents       to     establish          that    the
    defendant’s      convictions             for       violating      
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1
    (a)(2)          constituted          “violent        felonies”          that     would
    subject him to enhanced sentencing as an armed career criminal
    under 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e).                Vann II, 
    2011 WL 4793230
    , at *1-4.
    Guzman-Alvarado asserts that his Alford plea, entered
    without his admission of guilt or any facts, cannot be used to
    establish a predicate offense.                     See Alston, 
    611 F.3d at 226
    .
    However, because North Carolina’s indecent liberties statute is
    categorically        a    crime     of    violence       under    USSG       § 2L1.2,        the
    5
    district court did not need to consider any facts to find that
    Guzman-Alvarado’s prior conviction for indecent liberties was a
    crime   of    violence    under    USSG    § 2L1.2.         Consequently,      we   are
    satisfied      that    the     district    court      did   not    plainly    err   in
    treating      Guzman-Alvarado’s           prior      conviction      for      indecent
    liberties as a crime of violence that warranted the 16-level
    increase under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
    We   therefore      affirm       the   sentence      imposed    by    the
    district     court.      We    dispense    with      oral   argument    because     the
    facts   and    legal    contentions       are     adequately      presented    in   the
    materials     before     the    court     and    argument    would     not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    6