United States v. Monjaras-Castaneda ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-50731
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUVENITO MONJARAS-CASTANEDA,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
September 16, 1999
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
The issue presented in this appeal is one of statutory
construction. Its resolution will determine whether Juvenito
Monjaras-Castaneda’s crime of conviction, illegally transporting
aliens, is an aggravated felony, thereby requiring an enhanced
sentence.
I
On September 24, 1992, six people illegally crossed the Rio
Grande into the United States near Eagle Pass, Texas. They
continued to Smiley, Texas, where they joined Juventino Monjaras-
Castaneda (“Monjaras”).1 He was supposed to take them to Waco,
Texas, but a traffic accident on September 26 ended the trip. The
police arrested Monjaras and the rest of the group.
Monjaras later pled guilty to transporting aliens in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(now § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)) and was
sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. After serving his sentence,
he was deported. He reentered the country two years later and was
again deported in 1996. In 1998, the border patrol arrested him,
along with his brother, near Carrizo Springs, Texas.
This time, Monjaras pled guilty to illegal reentry into the
United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2). The
district court sentenced him to 46 months’ imprisonment. In
calculating this sentence, the district court increased the base
offense level by 16 under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because of
Monjaras’s 1992 aggravated felony conviction for illegally
transporting aliens. In rejecting Monjaras’s objection to the
enhancement, the district court explained that Monjaras’s earlier
1
Monjaras had already met with the group in Mexico to arrange
the trip.
2
six-month prison sentence had not been a sufficient deterrent to
stop him from returning to the United States. Monjaras now
challenges the sentence enhancement by arguing that illegally
transporting aliens does not fall within the definition of
“aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).
II
A
There is only one issue before us on appeal: whether the term
“aggravated felony” in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)2 of the federal sentencing
guidelines includes illegal transport of aliens. Application Note
One to this section explains that “[a]ggravated felony is defined
2
This section of the sentencing guidelines is titled
“Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the United States,” and reads:
(a) Base Offense Level: 8
(b) Specific Offense Characteristic
(1) If the defendant previously was deported after a
criminal conviction, or if the defendant unlawfully
remained in the United States following a removal
order issued after a criminal conviction, increase
as follows (if more than one applies, use the
greater):
(A) If the conviction was for an aggravated
felony, increase by 16 levels.
(B) If the conviction was for (i) any other
felony, or (ii) three or more misdemeanor
crimes of violence or misdemeanor controlled
substance offenses, increase by 4 levels.
(Emphasis added.)
3
at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43).” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment, n.1. Under
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N), “The term ‘aggravated felony’
means-- . . . an offense described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of
section 1324(a) of this title (relating to alien smuggling).”
Monjaras concedes that 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A) describes the offense
of illegal transport of aliens, along with several other offenses
related to illegal aliens.3
3
(1)(A) Any person who--
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or
attempts to bring to the United States in any
manner whatsoever such person at a place other than
a designated port of entry or place other than as
designated by the Commissioner, regardless of
whether such alien has received prior official
authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the
United States and regardless of any future official
action which may be taken with respect to such
alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an
alien has come to, entered, or remains in the
United States in violation of law, transports, or
moves or attempts to transport or move such alien
within the United States by means of transportation
or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of
law;
(iii)knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an
alien has come to, entered, or remains in the
United States in violation of law, conceals,
harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to
conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such
alien in any place, including any building or any
means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or
reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless
disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry,
or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the
preceding acts, or (II) aids or abets the
4
It seems straightforward that Monjaras’s illegal-transport-of-
aliens conviction qualifies him for the increased punishment, but
Monjaras makes three statutory construction arguments to the
contrary. All three concern the parenthetical in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(1)(A), “(relating to alien smuggling).”
First, Monjaras contends that under the plain meaning of
§ 1324(a)(1)(A), a conviction for transporting aliens does not
“relate to alien smuggling.” He points out that “smuggling”
involves crossing a national border. Monjaras then concludes that
the only way to give effect to the phrase “relating to alien
smuggling” is to limit the scope of § 1101(a)(43)(N) to include
only the crimes in § 1324(a) that involve alien smuggling.
Second, Monjaras supports his proposed construction by arguing
that it is consistent with other provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and the sentencing guidelines interpreting them.
He begins by arguing that “smuggling” in § 1101(a)(43)(N) should
have the same meaning as in 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(E) (recodified at
8 U.S.C. § 1227). That section defines “smuggling” as having
“encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien
to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of the
commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
5
law.” Monjaras then cites case law4 interpreting § 1251(a)(1)(E)
to require entry into the United States in order to qualify as
“smuggling.” He next points to the title of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1,
“Smuggling, Transporting, or Harboring an Unlawful Alien.” Since
it separates “smuggling” and “transporting” as two different
offenses, Monjaras believes we should treat each differently.
Third, Monjaras contends that we must construe any ambiguity
in § 1101(a)(43)(N) in his favor under the rule of lenity.
The government responds with the following five arguments of
its own. First, the intent of Congress has been to expand the
definition of “aggravated felony.”5 Second, the plain meaning of
§ 1101, § 1324, and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 includes transportation of
aliens because that offense is expressly enumerated in
§ 1101(a)(43)(N). Third, the government argues that the “relating
to” parenthetical merely describes the general nature of the
felonies in § 1324(a)(1)(A) rather than which of those felonies
apply to § 1101(a)(43)(N). Fourth, even if the “relating to”
parenthetical is restrictive, not descriptive, a broad reading of
“relating to” still includes transporting aliens. Fifth, the rule
4
The case Monjaras cites is Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d
194, 201 (5th Cir. 1996).
5
The government cites Richardson v. Reno, 162 F.3d 1338, 1350
n.42 (11th Cir. 1998) in support of its interpretation of
“congressional intent.”
6
of lenity does not apply because the two statutes and the
sentencing guidelines are unambiguous.
B
We review the district court’s application of the sentencing
guidelines de novo, United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691,
693 (5th Cir. 1997), and conclude that “aggravated felony” in
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) includes transportation of aliens. The
central question is whether the parenthetical in § 1101(a)(43)(N)
is descriptive or restrictive.
The process of statutory construction begins with an
examination of the statute’s actual language. United States v.
Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U.S. 350, 356, 114 S. Ct. 1599, 128 L. Ed. 2d 319
(1994). The language at issue is from § 1101(a)(43)(N): “The term
‘aggravated felony’ means-- . . . an offense described in paragraph
(1)(A) or (2) of section 1324(a) of this title (relating to alien
smuggling).”
An examination of this language reveals that the
parenthetical, “(relating to alien smuggling)” refers to “paragraph
(1)(A) or (2) of section 1324(a) of this title,” not “offense.”
The conventional rules of grammar demonstrate this. See Norman J.
Singer, 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 45.13, at 78 (5th
ed. 1992)(“[L]egislators can be presumed to rely on conventional
language usage.”). If the parenthetical referred to “offense,” it
7
would have been placed directly after that word. The parenthetical
instead has been placed in the prepositional phrase introduced by
“in,” of which “paragraph” is the subject. See John E. Warriner
and Francis Griffith, English Grammar and Composition 37-40
(Heritage ed., Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1977)(discussing
prepositional phrases).
This examination indicates that the parenthetical is more
reasonably interpreted as descriptive rather than limiting. If the
parenthetical referred to “offenses,” then the statute would
effectively read: “offense[s] (relating to alien smuggling)
described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of section 1324(a) of this
title,” which obviously would be a very different proposition that
would clearly favor Monjaras’s interpretation. But, alas, that is
not the way the statute is written.
Reading the parenthetical to refer to “paragraph” does not end
our inquiry, however, because there are still two possible
interpretations. Should we read it as “the offenses described in
paragraph (1)(A) or (2) that are smuggling offenses,” or as “the
offenses described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2), which generally
deals with smuggling offenses”?
We read the parenthetical descriptively based on the general
context and structure of § 1101(43). Courts have often construed
parentheticals in statutes in this manner based on these two
8
considerations. See, e.g., Quarles v. St. Clair, 711 F.2d 691,
700 n.28 (5th Cir. 1983)(concluding that parenthetical in 42 U.S.C.
§ 602(a)(28) was for clarification purposes only); United States v.
Herring, 602 F.2d 1220, 1223 (5th Cir. 1979)(holding that
parenthetical in 18 U.S.C. § 1961 was “merely to aid identification
of [18 U.S.C.] § 2314 rather than to limit”); United States v.
Kassouf, 144 F.3d 952, 959-60 (6th Cir. 1998)(finding parenthetical
in 26 U.S.C. § 6531(6) descriptive); United States v. Garner, 837
F.2d 1404, 1419 (7th Cir. 1987)(finding parenthetical in 18 U.S.C.
1961(1)(B) “mere ‘visual aids,’ designed to guide the reader
through what would otherwise be a litany of numbers”).
The context in which the parenthetical appears in this case
suggests its descriptive nature. Section 1101(a)(43) contains a
long list of aggravated felonies that it references by section
number. Without any descriptions of what this “litany of numbers”
referred to, determining whether an offense qualified as an
aggravated felony would be a long and arduous process. One would
need to look up each section number in the Code to get to the right
one. The parentheticals here provide an “aid to identification”
only.
The government makes a strong structural argument by pointing
to parentheticals in § 1101(a)(43) that are indeed expressly
limiting. One example is § 1101(a)(43)(F), which reads “a crime
9
of violence (as defined in § 16 of Title 18, but not including a
purely political offense) for which a term of imprisonment is at
least one year.” (Emphasis added.) Another is § 1101(a)(43)(J):
“an offense described . . . in section 1084 (if it is a second or
subsequent offense).” (Emphasis added.)
Congress thus clearly demonstrated its ability to exclude some
specific offenses from those listed in the more general sections.
We will not therefore infer exclusion in § 1101(a)(43)(N),
especially since transportation of aliens is specifically
enumerated in § 1324(a). “A parenthetical is, after all, a
parenthetical, and it cannot be used to overcome the operative
terms of the statute.” Cabell Huntington Hospital, Inc. v.
Shalala, 101 F.3d 984, 990 (4th Cir. 1996).
The phrase “relating to alien smuggling” does describe the
offenses in § 1324(a). All involve the transportation, movement,
and hiding of aliens into and within the United States.
We can quickly dispose of Monjaras’s arguments. We have
already addressed the statute’s plain meaning and need not restate
our reasoning. Since that meaning is plain, use of the rule of
lenity is not warranted. The rule applies only when the statute is
ambiguous. United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 17 (1994)
(citations omitted); United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316, 344 (5th
Cir. 1999). Finally, the provision of the Immigration and
10
Nationality Act that Monjaras relies on simply defines smuggling,
which is irrelevant to our inquiry. And Monjaras’s restatement of
the title of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1, “Smuggling, Transporting, or
Harboring an Unlawful Alien,” indicates that smuggling and
transporting should be treated together, not separately, for
purposes of this guideline.
Even if Monjaras were correct that the parenthetical is
limiting, he ignores the “relating to” portion of “(relating to
alien smuggling).” Transporting aliens is quite often “related to”
smuggling. This was especially true in Monjaras’s case, where the
transportation was merely one step in smuggling the six illegal
aliens from Mexico and Waco.
As a result, we conclude that the parenthetical “(relating to
alien smuggling)” acts only to describe, not to limit the “offenses
11
described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of section 1324(a).”6
Transporting aliens, therefore, is an aggravated felony for
purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).
For the reasons stated herein, we AFFIRM.
6
Our construction accords with the legislative history as
well. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-22, at 5 (1995) (“H.R. 688 makes
several amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act . . . the
bill would add certain crimes to the definition of ‘aggravated
felony’. . . .”); id. at 7 (“One of the steps the Committee
recommends . . . is to add several crimes to the definition of
‘aggravated felony.’”); id. (“In adding crimes to the list, effort
was made to ensure that the overall reach of the definition would
be consistent with the sentencing guidelines.”); H.R. Rep. No.
104-22, at 5 (1995)(“[these amendments] address the problems of
aliens who commit serious crimes while they are in the United
States and to give Federal law enforcement officials additional
means to combat organized immigration crime.”)
12
A F F I R M E D.
13
POLITZ, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Persuaded that Congress and the Sentencing Commission did not
intend for mere transportation of aliens without a corresponding
act of smuggling to be considered an aggravated felony, I
respectfully must dissent.
As the majority has noted, Juventino Monjaras-Castaneda pled
guilty to being found in the United States after previously having
been deported, resulting in a base offense level of eight under the
Guidelines. With an acceptance of responsibility adjustment, the
sentencing range would have been 10-16 months.7 The district
court, however, applied a 16-level enhancement under USSG §
2L1.2(b)(1)(A), which, with an acceptance of responsibility
adjustment, resulted in a Guideline range of 46-57 months.
Monjaras was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment.
USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) requires the 16-level increase in the
base offense level if the defendant previously was deported or
removed after a criminal conviction provided the conviction was for
an “aggravated felony.” Application note one to § 2L1.2 observes
that an aggravated felony “is defined at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)
without regard to the date of conviction of the aggravated felony.”
7
The 10-16 month range would have resulted from a four-level
enhancement for a previous non-aggravating felony and a two-level
acceptance of responsibility adjustment.
14
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N), an “aggravated felony” includes
“an offense described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of section 1324(a)
of this title (relating to alien smuggling).” M o n j a r a s
previously had been deported because he was convicted of
transportation of aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A). In that
offense, Monjaras met six undocumented aliens in Smiley, Texas,
near San Antonio, and began driving them to Waco. Because the
transportation offense of which he was convicted did not involve
bringing aliens across the border, Monjaras contends that the crime
is not one “relating to alien smuggling” and cannot be used for the
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) sentencing enhancement.
Although the majority correctly frames the issue, I must
disagree with its resolution. By concluding that the parenthetical
phrase “relating to alien smuggling” is merely a description of the
crimes in § 1324(a), the majority necessarily ignores both the
plain language of the statute and the structure of other
immigration provisions.
The fundamental rule of statutory construction requires that
courts give effect to every word in a statute.8 “Smuggling” is
defined as the “fraudulent taking into a country, or out of it,
8
Ruiz v. Estelle, 161 F.3d 814 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Crist
v. Crist, 632 F.2d 1226, 1233 n.11 (5th Cir. 1980) (stating that
courts must “give effect, whenever possible to all parts of a
statute and avoid an interpretation which makes a part redundant or
superfluous”)).
15
15
merchandise which is lawfully prohibited.”9 Consequently, because
“alien” is defined as a non-citizen or non-national of the United
States,10 “alien smuggling” would be the illegal taking of a non-
citizen into the country, an action which, to me, entails a
crossing of the border. Further, there are several crimes listed
in § 1324(a)(1) & (2) that do not involve the bringing of aliens
into the United States, such as encouraging aliens to enter the
country,11 and concealing, harboring, or shielding them from
detection.12 I am of the belief that if Congress had intended to
include any crime listed in § 1324(a)(1) or (2) as an aggravated
felony, it simply would have said so. That it chose not to do so
but, rather, used the “relating to alien smuggling” language is not
properly weighed by the majority in my view.13
9
Black’s Law Dictionary 1389 (6th ed. 1990). Black’s Law
Dictionary also notes that “smuggling” and “smuggle” have “well-
understood meaning[s] at common law.” Id.
10
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3).
11
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).
12
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).
13
The majority places great emphasis on grammatical rules and
sentence structure in concluding that the parenthetical is
descriptive rather than restrictive. The majority recognizes,
however, that reliance on grammar and construction does not
eliminate a restrictive interpretation of the parenthetical. See
ante at 8-9 (noting the two possible interpretations remaining
after grammatical analysis).
16
16
My resolution is buttressed by the construction of other
immigration provisions. For example, § 1324 sets more serious
penalties for offenses which involve the bringing of aliens into
the United States as compared to the harboring, transporting, and
concealing offenses, in which the alien already is in the country.14
Additionally, elsewhere in the Immigration and Nationality Act
“smuggling” is defined as having “encouraged, induced, assisted,
abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the
United States in violation of law.”15 Likewise, the disjunctive
division of Guideline provision titles such as “Smuggling,
Transporting, or Harboring an Unlawful Alien”16 indicates a
distinction between smuggling and transporting offenses.17
14
Compare the ten-year penalty for offenses in which a person
“brings to” the United States an alien, 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(1)(B)(i), with the five-year penalty for transporting,
concealing, and harboring offenses, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii).
15
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(E)(i) (emphasis added). See Sullivan
v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) (holding that identical words used
in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same
meaning); Matador Petroleum Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins.
Co., 174 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 1999).
16
See USSG § 2L1.1 (emphasis added).
17
Holly Farms Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 517 U.S. 392 (1996) (holding
that terms connected by a disjunctive are to be given separate
meanings) (quoting Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979));
Crist, 632 F.2d at 1233 n.11.
17
17
Further, the majority ignores the rule of lenity, which
requires that ambiguities in federal statutes or sentencing
enhancements are to be considered in the defendant’s favor and are
not to be construed in a way that maximizes the penalty.18 Because
Congress and the Sentencing Commission did not define “alien
smuggling” and the crimes that relate to the smuggling, it would
appear that there exists an ambiguity in the statute that should
have resulted in an interpretation favorable to Monjaras.
Finally, the very seriousness of the 16-level enhancement
cannot go unnoticed. Using the bottom of the Guideline range, the
aggravated felony enhancement caused a four-fold increase in
Monjaras’ sentence. In my opinion the majority’s holding relies on
far too slender a reed to warrant this dramatic increase.
Convinced that Congress meant to require a border-crossing element
when it authorized an aggravated felony enchantment for crimes
“relating to alien smuggling,” I must dissent.
18
United States v. Brito, 136 F.3d 397 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 118 S. Ct. 1817 (1998).
18
18