United States v. Carlos Sanchez-Perez

1 F. App'x 575

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: January 10, 2001
• Docket: 00-1755
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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 court 1 sentenced him to seventy-eight months imprisonment and three years supervised release.

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)(l)(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.l) (“ ‘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, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (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.

1 . The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.