United States v. Bustillos-Medrano

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 6, 2010
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 09-2305
(D.C. No. 1:08-CR-01684-JCH-1)
v.
(D. N.M.)
EMIGDIO BUSTILLOS - MEDRANO,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Circuit Judge, HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge, and MELGREN,
District Judge.**
Mr. Emigdio Bustillos-Medrano (Bustillos or defendant) was indicted on one
count of illegal re-entry of a removed alien. Mr. Bustillos brings this direct appeal from
his sentence, an appeal which is authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and is within the
jurisdiction granted this court by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
I
Mr. Bustillos was incarcerated in Albuquerque after his arrest on a state charge of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R.32.1.
**
The Honorable Eric F. Melgren, United States District Judge for the District of
Kansas, sitting by designation.
burglary. A few days after defendant’s arrest, an agent from the federal Immigration and
Customs Enforcement was checking the immigration status of inmates at the jail and
determined that Bustillos was not only in the country illegally but that he had been deported
previously. Some months later, after defendant had pleaded guilty to the burglary charge and
received a suspended sentence, defendant was prosecuted in federal court for illegal re-entry
after removal, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Defendant pleaded guilty.
The presentence report (PSR) recommended that the base offense level (eight) be
increased by sixteen because prior to his removal defendant had been convicted of
“residential burglary,”1 a “crime of violence” for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the
Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant was in criminal history category six. The resulting
advisory guidelines range was 77 to 96 months.
Significantly for purposes of this appeal, Mr. Bustillos did not question the application
of the sixteen-level enhancement in the calculation of the advisory guidelines sentence.
Instead, he asked the district court to vary downward from the calculated range and impose
a sentence of fifteen months’ imprisonment. He argued that the advisory guidelines sentence
was unreasonable in his case and more than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing set
out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He cited cases in which other courts have, in specific
circumstances found the sixteen-level enhancement “excessively harsh in effect,” in his
words.
1
As discussed infra, “residential burglary” is not an offense defined per se in the
New Mexico statutes.
-2-
The judge did grant a downward variance from the Guidelines range, although the
variance was not nearly as great as the one Mr. Bustillos had requested. The judge sentenced
defendant to sixty months’ imprisonment.
II
On appeal, Mr. Bustillos challenges only the calculation of the applicable advisory
guideline range, specifically the sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §
2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Thus, his challenge is only to the procedural reasonableness of his
sentence. See United States v. Martinez, 610 F.3d 1216, 1223 (10th Cir. 2010) (noting that
we review criminal sentences for reasonableness, which includes substantive and procedural
components, and that proper calculation of the advisory guideline range is necessary for
procedural reasonableness). Because Mr. Bustillos did not raise this issue in the district
court, he concedes that our review is only for plain error. See United States v. Zubia-Torres,
550 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2008).
The sixteen-level enhancement at issue here is added to the base level for the crime
of illegal re-entry if the defendant prior to removal from this country had been convicted of
a crime falling within certain categories. Of those categories, the one relevant in this appeal
is that of “a crime of violence.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The authoritative application
notes for this guideline include a definition of “crime of violence,” and that definition
provides that the term includes, inter alia, the offense of “burglary of a dwelling” under
federal, state or local law. Id., comment. (n.1(B)(iii)).
Mr. Bustillos asserts that the New Mexico statutes do not in fact include either a
-3-
crime of “burglary of a dwelling,” the term used in the Guidelines definition, or a crime of
“residential burglary,” as his prior conviction was described in the PSR. The statute defining
the basic offense of burglary in New Mexico states:
A. Any person who, without authorization, enters a dwelling house with
intent to commit any felony or theft therein is guilty of a third degree felony.
B. Any person who, without authorization, enters any vehicle, watercraft,
aircraft or other structure, movable or immovable, with intent to commit any
felony or theft therein is guilty of a fourth degree felony.
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-3.2Defendant points out that the PSR described his relevant prior conviction in 2000 as
being for “residential burglary.” In further description, the PSR says that a victim had
reported that a bicycle and a drill had been taken from a storage shed, and that other items,
including a backpack, binoculars, and a handgun, had been taken from within the victim’s
residence. But, defendant says, the PSR does not say which items were the basis of the
conviction, and there were no documents from the state court case to supply that information.
If the conviction were based only on the items taken from the storage shed, it would not have
been burglary of a dwelling and the enhancement should not have been applied. If the
burglary had been only of the storage shed, the proper guidelines enhancement would have
been only four levels, which would have resulted in an advisory guidelines range of only 24-
30 months, defendant asserts.
In making the guidelines determination for enhancement based on a prior conviction,
2
Section 30-16-4 of the New Mexico statutes defines “aggravated burglary.” That
provision is not at issue in this appeal.
-4-
the sentencing court is limited to examining the language of the statute of conviction, the
terms of the charging document, the terms of the plea agreement or transcript of the plea
colloquy or comparable judicial records. United States v. Taylor, 413 F.3d 1146, 1157 (10th
Cir. 2005). Because the statute at issue here is not determinative, and there were no other
court documents, Mr. Bustillos argues that the district court here could not have determined
whether he had been convicted in 2000 of burglary of the residence or only of the storage
shed. Because this made a substantial difference in calculating the applicable guideline
range, defendant concludes, it affected substantive rights and requires reversal.
The government’s argument in response relies primarily on the strict standards of
plain error review. Ordinarily, the government would have had the burden of providing
documentary evidence to support the enhancement if challenged by the defendant. But the
government argues that where, as here, the defendant has not challenged the enhancement,
the government has no such burden. This, the government contends, is what this court held
in United States v. Zubia-Torres, 550 F.3d 1202, 1204 (10th Cir. 2008), and that case is
controlling here.
Zubia-Torres also involved a sixteen-level enhancement of the offense level for illegal
re-entry, but in that case the prior conviction on which the enhancement was based was a
drug trafficking crime. On appeal, Mr. Zubia-Torres challenged the enhancement,
contending that the Nevada statute on which the previous conviction had been based was
broad enough to encompass mere possession offenses as well as trafficking offenses, and that
therefore the basis for the enhancement in federal court had not been established. This court
-5-
held that the argument could not clear the third hurdle of plain error review: Zubia-Torres
could not show that his substantial rights had been violated because the government might
have been able to prove the basis for the enhancement had a challenge been made in the trial
court requiring it to do so. Because plain error review controlled, the burden on appeal was
shifted to Zubia-Torres to show that the documents of the prior state conviction would not
have proven the basis for the enhancement, and he had no such evidence.
We conclude that Zubia-Torres is controlling. Here, as in that case, the defendant
forfeited – rather than waived – a challenge to the enhancement in the district court. The
record in the instant case, as in Zubia-Torres, discloses that counsel did not consciously
choose to forego the argument but failed to recognize the argument. See Zubia-Torres, 550
F.3d at 1205. Accordingly, we can review the issue, but only for plain error. Id.Under plain error review, the appellant must first show “(1) error, (2) that is plain, (3)
which affects substantial rights. If these criteria are met, then we may exercise discretion to
correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the
judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1208 (citing United States v. Johnson, 414 F.3d 1260, 1263
(10th Cir. 2005)).
On the merits, again Zubia-Torres is directly on point and so is controlling precedent.
We said there that “because Mr. Zubia-Torres failed to present any evidence suggesting that
imposition of the § 2L1.2 enhancement was ultimately inappropriate in his case, he cannot
show that his substantial rights were affected by any error that may have been committed.”
Id.
-6-
The same is true in this case. Mr. Bustillos cannot show that his substantial rights
were affected. There is only a speculative possibility that Mr. Bustillos could have
successfully challenged the enhancement. We cannot say that the sentence here was
procedurally unreasonable on the basis of such speculation. Accordingly, the sentence must
be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
William J. Holloway, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-7-