Alexis Martinez v. Attorney General United States
906 F.3d 281
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Martinez, a Dominican national and lawful permanent resident, was convicted in New Jersey for possessing cocaine, possession with intent to distribute, distribution, and conspiracy; jury instructions allowed conviction based on attempts to transfer or aid distribution. He received a 20-year sentence.
- DHS charged Martinez as removable, arguing his New Jersey drug-distribution convictions matched the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 841) (making them aggravated felonies) and that the convictions related to federally controlled substances (making them controlled-substance offenses subject to removal). The immigration judge and BIA sustained the charges.
- Martinez appealed, arguing (1) New Jersey’s attempt law is broader than federal attempt law (so his attempt-based convictions are not aggravated felonies), and (2) New Jersey’s drug schedule is broader than the federal schedule (so his conviction might not relate to a federally controlled substance).
- The Third Circuit applied the categorical approach (compare statutory elements, presume conviction rested on least culpable conduct) and reviewed de novo.
- The court examined whether New Jersey attempt law and the federal attempt doctrine are coextensive and whether the relevant drug schedules should be compared as of the date of conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NJ attempt law is broader than federal attempt law (affecting aggravated-felony status) | Martinez: NJ treats mere preparation and solicitation as attempt, broader than federal law, so his attempt-based conviction is not an aggravated felony | Government: Both NJ and federal attempt law follow the Model Penal Code’s "substantial step"/"strongly corroborative" test; solicitation counts only when strongly corroborative, so they are coextensive | Held: NJ and federal attempt law are coextensive; solicitation counts only if it strongly corroborates intent; conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony |
| Whether the conviction "relates to a federally controlled substance" given differences in drug schedules | Martinez: NJ list currently includes a substance not on the federal list, so his conviction might not relate to a federally controlled substance | Government: Compare schedules as of the date of conviction; at that time NJ and federal lists were the same, so the conviction relates to a federally controlled substance | Held: Compare schedules at date of conviction per Mellouli; at that date the lists were identical, so conviction relates to a federally controlled substance |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (categorical approach for immigration removability)
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (compare controlled-substance lists as of conviction date)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (agency decisions must be upheld on the grounds the agency actually relied upon)
- United States v. Cicco, 10 F.3d 980 (3d Cir. 1993) (federal attempt requires substantial step strongly corroborative of criminal purpose)
- Sandoval v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2017) (contrasting view on whether solicitation/offers to deliver qualify as federal attempt)