DocketNumber: 02-3369
Judges: Bowman, Wollman, Loken
Filed Date: 2/21/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 02-3369 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Francisco Perez-Alejo, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: February 13, 2003 Filed: February 21, 2003 ___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Francisco Perez-Alejo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1326
, and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of18 U.S.C. § 922
(g)(5). The district court1 sentenced him to 41 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release on both counts, to be served concurrently. On appeal, Perez-Alejo argues that the district court plainly erred in 1 The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. failing to group the two offenses under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(a), because they involved the same victim (society at large) and the same transaction. We find no plain error. See United States v. Scott,243 F.3d 1103
, 1108 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review). The two offenses address different societal interests. Thus, they cannot be grouped. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2, comment. (n.2) (where victim is societal interest that has been harmed, counts are grouped together only where societal interests are closely related); United States v. Barron-Rivera,922 F.2d 549
, 554-55 (9th Cir. 1991) (§ 922(g) protects society against those deemed unqualified to possess firearms, while § 1326 is designed to enforce immigration laws); see also United States v. Herrera,265 F.3d 349
, 353 (6th Cir. 2001) (district court properly did not group illegal-reentry and firearm offenses because purposes behind laws are dissimilar); United States v. Salgado-Ocampo,159 F.3d 322
, 328 (7th Cir. 1998) (same); United States v. Baeza-Suchil,52 F.3d 898
, 900 (10th Cir. 1995) (same). The judgment is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
United States v. Francisco Javier Herrera ( 2001 )
united-states-of-america-v-michael-joseph-scott-also-known-as-breeze ( 2001 )
United States v. Adolfo Baeza-Suchil, AKA Joe Garza-Garza, ... ( 1995 )
United States v. Marcos Salgado-Ocampo ( 1998 )