United States v. Carlos Sanchez-Perez , 1 F. App'x 575 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-1755
    ___________
    United States of America,             *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    *
    v.                              * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Carlos Sanchez-Perez, also known as   * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Jesus Pereda-Lopez                    *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 26, 2000
    Filed: January 10, 2001
    ___________
    Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Carlos Sanchez-Perez pleaded guilty to illegally re-entering the United States,
    having previously been deported subsequent to a conviction for commission of an
    aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The district court1 sentenced
    him to seventy-eight months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
    1
    The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Sanchez-Perez renews on appeal the argument he presented below, that the
    statute--which penalizes an alien “whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for
    commission of an aggravated felony,” see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)--is ambiguous.
    “Subsequent to” could mean either “after” or “as a result of,” Sanchez-Perez argues,
    and he is entitled to the more lenient reading. He contends that, as his deportation
    resulted from illegally re-entering the United States in violation of a prior deportation
    order, not being convicted for an aggravated felony, his offense level should not have
    been enhanced by sixteen levels under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).
    Sanchez-Perez concedes in his brief that “nearly all dictionaries define the word
    ‘subsequent’ to connote ‘following in time’ or sequential.” We conclude that the word
    should be understood to carry its common meaning. See Beef Nebraska, Inc. v. United
    States, 
    807 F.2d 712
    , 716 (8th Cir. 1986) (fundamental canon of statutory construction
    is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary,
    contemporary, common meaning); BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1427 (6th ed. 1990)
    (subsequent means following in time, coming or being later than something else, or
    succeeding).
    This meaning is accurately reflected in the Guidelines commentary. See
    U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.1) (“‘Deported after a conviction’ means that the
    deportation was subsequent to the conviction, whether or not the deportation was in
    response to such conviction.”); Stinson v. United States, 
    508 U.S. 36
    , 38 (1993)
    (Guidelines commentary that interprets or explains particular Guideline is authoritative
    unless it violates Constitution or federal statute, or is inconsistent with or is plainly
    erroneous reading of, that Guideline).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    -2-
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-1755

Citation Numbers: 1 F. App'x 575

Judges: Arnold, Bye, Hansen, Per Curiam, Richard

Filed Date: 1/10/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024