United States v. Rosas ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40042
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAYMUNDO VALENTIN ROSAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-99-CR-290-ALL
--------------------
August 24, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raymundo Valentin Rosas appeals his guilty-plea conviction
and sentence for knowingly possessing with the intent to transfer
unlawfully five or more false identification documents, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3). Rosas’ sole contention on
appeal is that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G.
§ 2L2.1, rather than § 2F1.1, to determine Rosas’ guideline
sentence.
This court reviews a district court’s selection of the
applicable sentencing guideline de novo. United States v.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-40042
-2-
Principe, 203 F.3d 849, 851 (5th Cir. 2000). Appendix A of the
Sentencing Guidelines identifies both §§ 2F1.1 and 2L2.1 as
applicable to violations of § 1028. However, application note 12
to § 2F1.1 states that “[w]here the primary purpose of the
offense involved the unlawful production, transfer, possession,
or use of identification documents for the purpose of violating,
or assisting another to violate, the laws relating to
naturalization, citizenship or legal resident status, apply
§2L2.1 . . . rather than §2F1.1.”
Although the memorandum of the plea agreement between Rosas
and the Government neither discussed the nature of Rosas’ offense
nor included a factual resume, Rosas admitted under oath at his
rearraignment hearing that the false identification documents
would have been used to get illegal aliens into the United
States. Rosas’ admission constituted a stipulation in his guilty
plea of a fact establishing that the primary purpose of his
offense involved the unlawful possession of identification
documents for the purpose of assisting another to violate
immigration laws. See § 2F1.1, comment. (n.12). The district
court thus did not err in applying § 2L2.1 to determine Rosas’
guideline sentence. See Principe, 203 F.3d at 853-54;
§ 1B1.2(a).
AFFIRMED.