United States v. Saenz-Gomez

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit·Decided January 2, 2007·No. 06-2148·Published

Opinion

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

PUBLISH

January 2, 2007

U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court

TENTH CIRCUIT

U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER IC A ,

P l a in t i f f - A p p e ll e e , v. No. 06-2148 JAV IER SAEN Z-GO M EZ,

D efendant-A ppellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW M EXICO (D .C . N o. C R -05-2760-JC )

S u b m i t t e d o n t h e b r ie f s :

J o s e p h W . G a n d e rt , A s s i s t a n t F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r , A l b u q u e r q u e , N e w M exico, for D efendant-A ppellant.

D a v id C . I g l e s ia s , U n i t e d S t a te s A t t o r n e y; W i l l i a m J . P f l u g r a th , A s s i s t a n t U n i t e d S t a te s A t t o r n e y, D i s t r i c t o f N e w M e x ic o , A l b u q u e r q u e , N e w M e x ic o , f o r P l a in t i f f - A p p e ll e e .

B e f o r e B R I S C O E , E B E L , a n d T Y M K O V I C H , C i r c u it J u d g e s .

B R I S C O E , C i r c u it J u d g e .

D e f e n d a n t J a v ie r S a e n z -G o m e z p le a d e d g u i l t y t o i l l e g a l r e e n tr y a f te r

r e m o v a l f o ll o w i n g a c o n v ic ti o n f o r a n a g g ra v a te d f e l o n y i n v i o l a ti o n o f 8

U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , a n d ( b ) ( 2 ) a n d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o a t h i r t y- m o n t h

t e r m o f im p r i s o n m e n t. O n a p p e a l , S a e n z -G o m e z a r g u e s t h a t t h e d is t r i c t

c o u r t e r r e d in e n h a n c i n g h i s s e n te n c e p u r s u a n t t o 8 U .S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) a n d

U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( B ). W e e x e r c is e ju r i s d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . §

1291 and affirm .1

I.

O n F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 2 0 0 1 , a s t a te g r a n d ju r y r e tu r n e d a tw o - c o u n t

indictm ent charging Saenz-G omez w ith possession w ith intent to distribute

h e r o i n a n d c o n s p i r a c y t o d i s t r i b u t e h e ro i n . S a e n z -G o m e z p le a d e d n o t

g u i l t y. A j u r y f o u n d h im g u i l t y o f b o th c o u n ts a n d th e s t a te c o u rt s e n te n c e d

h i m t o a tw e lv e -ye a r t e r m o f im p r i s o n m e n t, b u t s u s p e n d e d h is s e n te n c e a n d

p l a c e d h i m o n p r o b a ti o n f o r f iv e ye a rs . T h e c o u rt f il e d a w r i t t e n ju d g m e n t

a n d s e n te n c e o n A p r i l 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 . O n M a y 2 , 2 0 0 3 , b e f o r e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l

f il e d a n o ti c e o f a p p e a l , t h e I m m i g r a ti o n a n d N a tu r a li z a ti o n S e r v i c e (“ I N S ” )

d e p o r t e d S a e n z - G o m e z to M e x ic o , p u r s u a n t t o e x p e d it e d r e m o v a l

p r o c e e d i n g s b a s e d o n S a e n z - G o m e z ’s c o n v ic ti o n . S a e n z -G o m e z ’s c o u n s e l

filed a timely notice of appeal on M ay 20, 2003, from the 2003 state

c o n v ic ti o n . O n M a y 4 , 2 0 0 4 , S a e n z -G o m e z w a s a g a in r e m o v e d f r o m t h e

1

A f te r e x a m i n i n g t h e b r i e f s a n d a p p e l l a te r e c o rd , t h is p a n e l h a s determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in t h e d e t e r m in a t i o n o f t h i s a p p e a l . S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; 1 0 t h C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 ( G ) . T h e c a s e i s , t h e r e f o r e , o r d e r e d s u b m i t te d w i t h o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t .

U n i t e d S t a te s b y i m m i g r a ti o n a u th o r i t i e s f o r i l l e g a l r e e n tr y. T h e N e w

M e x ic o C o u r t o f A p p e a ls a f f i r m e d S a e n z - G o m e z ’s 2 0 0 3 s t a te c o n v ic ti o n o n

A u g u s t 9 , 2 0 0 5 , a n d th e N e w M e x ic o S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie d h is p e ti t i o n f o r

c e rt i o r a r i o n S e p t e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 .

O n S e p t e m b e r 8 , 2 0 0 5 , S a e n z -G o m e z w a s o n c e a g a in f o u n d in t h e

U n i t e d S t a te s . H e w a s i n d i c te d f o r i l l e g a l r e e n tr y t o t h e U n i t e d S t a te s a f te r

d e p o r t a ti o n f o ll o w i n g a c o n v ic ti o n f o r a n a g g ra v a te d f e l o n y i n v i o l a ti o n o f 8

U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , a n d ( b ) ( 2 ) . S a e n z -G o m e z e n t e r e d a g u il t y p l e a

p u r s u a n t t o t h e te r m s o f a p le a a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e g o v e rn m e n t, b u t r e s e r v e d

t h e r i g h t to c o n t e s t a p p l ic a t io n o f a t w e l v e - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t f o r r e e n t ry

a f te r r e m o v a l f o ll o w i n g a c o n v ic ti o n f o r a n a g g ra v a te d f e l o n y, l e a v in g t h e

e n h a n c e m e n t i s s u e to t h e d is c r e ti o n o f th e d is t r i c t c o u r t . P u r s u a n t t o t h e

p l e a a g r e e m e n t , t h e g o v e rn m e n t a g r e e d to r e c o m m e n d a th r e e -l e v e l

r e d u c ti o n f o r a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d to r e c o m m e n d a s e n te n c e a t

t h e l o w e n d o f th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e r a n g e .

The presentence report (“PSR”) indicated that the base level for

Saenz-G omez’s offense w as eight. See U .S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a). Tw elve levels

w e r e a d d e d , p u r s u a n t t o U .S . S . G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , b e c a u s e S a e n z - G o m e z

w a s p r e v io u s l y d e p o r t e d “ a f te r a c o n v ic ti o n f o r a f e l o n y d r u g t r a f f i c k in g

o f f e n s e f o r w h ic h th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d w a s 1 3 m o n th s o r l e s s .” U .S .S .G . §

2 L 1 . 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . T h e P S R n o t e d th a t t h e r e le v a n t c o n v ic ti o n w a s S a e n z -

G o m e z ’ s A p ri l 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , s ta te f e lo n y c o n v ic tio n f o r h e r o in tr a f f ic k in g .

T h r e e le v e ls w e r e s u b t r a c te d f o r a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, r e s u l t i n g i n a

t o t a l o f f e n s e le v e l o f s e v e n te e n . U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 .

A t s e n te n c in g , S a e n z -G o m e z o b je c te d to t h e P S R ’ s a p p li c a ti o n o f th e

t w e lv e - l e v e l e n h a n c e m e n t , a r g u i n g t h a t h i s A p r i l 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , s t a te c o n v ic ti o n

w as not final at the time of his removal and therefore not a conviction w ithin

t h e m e a n i n g o f 8 U .S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) o r U .S . S . G . § 2 L 1 .2 , b e c a u s e h e w a s

d e p o r t e d p ri o r t o e x e rc is in g h is r i g h t to a d ir e c t a p p e a l o n th a t c o n v ic tio n .

T h e d is t r i c t c o u r t a c c e p te d th e tw e lv e - l e v e l i n c r e a s e a n d d e te r m i n e d th a t

S a e n z - G o m e z ’ s o f f e n s e l e v e l w a s s e v e n t e e n , w i th a c r im i n a l h i s to r y

c a te g o r y o f I I I , i n d i c a ti n g a g u id e li n e r a n g e o f t h i r t y t o t h i r t y- s e v e n (3 0 - 3 7 )

m o n t h s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s e n te n c e d S a e n z - G o m e z to th ir ty m o n th s .

Saenz-G omez filed a timely notice of appeal.

II.

O n appeal, Saenz-G omez argues that the district court improperly

applied the twelve-level enhancement to his sentence because his 2003 state

conviction for heroin trafficking w as not final at the time of his removal,

a n d th e r e f o re is n o t a c o n v ic ti o n w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f 8 U .S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b )

o r U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . S p e c i f i c a l ly, h e c o n t e n d s t h a t f o r a

c o n v ic ti o n t o s e r v e a s t h e b a s i s f o r d e p o r t a ti o n , t h a t c o n v ic ti o n m u s t b e

f in a l a n d a c o n v i c ti o n i s n o t f in a l f o r i m m i g r a ti o n p u r p o s e s b e f o r e d ir e c t

a p p e a l h a s b e e n e x h a u s t e d o r w a iv e d . T h e r e f o re , a ju d g m e n t d o e s n o t

b e c o m e a c o n v i c t i o n w it h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) a n d U .S .S .G .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Saenz-Gomez, (10th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Saenz-Gomez (United States v. Saenz-Gomez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 1
8 U.S.C. § 1
Definitions
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A)
§ 1291
8 U.S.C. § 1291