United States v. Aldo Martinez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12250
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Lopez Martinez pled guilty to 8 U.S.C. §1326(a)-(b)(1) after deportation for being found in the U.S. following a felony conviction.
- The government sought a §2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(iii) firearms offense enhancement based on a prior Arizona conviction.
- The government introduced a criminal information alleging manufacture/possession/transfer of a sawn-off shotgun, a plea amendment to Solicitation to commit Misconduct Involving Weapons, and a judgment convicting Lopez Martinez of that amended charge.
- Arizona §13-3102 had fourteen subsections; the pre-amendment statute included several potentially qualifying and non-qualifying offenses under the firearms enhancement.
- The district court applied the modified categorical approach under Descamps to determine if the conviction qualified, using the pre-amendment information to narrow the offense.
- The district court sentenced with the enhancement but expressed concern about fairness, then imposed a 16-month downward variance, resulting in a 30-month sentence on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the modified categorical approach may rely on superseded indictments to qualify a conviction. | Lopez Martinez argues the court cannot use the pre-amendment information. | United States contends the information can be used to determine a qualifying offense. | No; the district court may not rely on superseded indictments under the modified approach. |
| Whether the record conclusively shows that Lopez Martinez’s conviction was for a qualifying offense. | Lopez Martinez contends the record does not show a specific qualifying violation. | United States argues the information could prove a qualifying offense if properly narrowed. | The record does not conclusively establish a qualifying offense; the modified approach cannot be used. |
| Whether a divisible statute and the defendant's plea/judgment can justify applying the firearms enhancement. | Lopez Martinez asserts the plea/judgment do not specify a qualifying subselection. | United States asserts the amendment could reflect a qualifying offense. | No; the plea and judgment do not specify the qualifying subdivision, so the enhancement cannot be applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. _ (U.S. 2013) (limits modified approach to divisible statutes; cannot look to Behind-the-record facts)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2010) (elements-based inquiry for determining which statutory phrase formed the basis of conviction)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (categorical approach for firearms offenses; consider statutory definitions)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (uses of judicial records to interpret prior conviction)
- Castleman, United States v., 572 U.S. _ (U.S. 2014) (modified approach limited to determining which element formed basis of conviction)
- Prudencio v. Holder, 669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (reliance on pre-plea information constrained)
- United States v. Gardner, 649 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2011) (limitations on modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Cabrera, 478 F. App’x 204 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished; limits on reliance on information)
- United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc; record limitations on construction of conviction)
- United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2008) (prior circuit authority on the modified categorical approach)