United States v. Arturo Castaneda-Lozoya, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1897

Arturo Castaneda-Lozoya, a Mexican national, was convicted in Texas in 2005 of felony sexual assault and given seven years deferred adjudication probation; he was deported in 2006 and then illegally returned in 2007.
He pled guilty to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326) after being found in the U.S. in 2014.
Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2, the probationary sexual-assault conviction triggered a 16-level enhancement as a prior “crime of violence,” producing an offense level of 21 and Guidelines range of 41–51 months; he had CHC II.
The district court concluded his earlier deportation followed conviction for an aggravated felony, making the statutory maximum 20 years under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2); the court sentenced him to 41 months.
On appeal Castaneda argued the Texas deferred-adjudication sentence was not a qualifying aggravated felony because he was not imprisoned for at least one year, so the 20-year maximum did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Castaneda’s 2005 Texas conviction was an "aggravated felony" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) making § 1326(b)(2)'s 20-year maximum applicable	Castaneda: deferred adjudication probation means he was not imprisoned for ≥1 year, so prior conviction is not an aggravated felony and only the 10-year maximum applies	Government: district court erred in that specific analysis but alternatively contends the conviction can be classified as rape (another aggravated-felony category) under the modified categorical approach	Affirmed. Court found government conceded error on the imprisonment analysis but rejected plain-error relief because Castaneda failed to show the error affected substantial rights (no record evidence the 20-year maximum influenced sentence)
Whether the appellate objection was preserved for de novo review	Castaneda: objected that prior conviction was not a "crime of violence" so preserved the aggravated-felony argument	Government: the preserved objection was different in substance (elements-based crime-of-violence issue), so the imprisonment-duration argument was not preserved	Held: Not preserved; plain-error review applies

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review: de novo for legal issues, clear error for facts)
United States v. Duque-Hernandez, 710 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review when issue raised first on appeal)
United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2010) (specifying what constitutes preservation of issues for appeal)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (four-prong framework for plain-error review)
United States v. Landeros-Arreola, 260 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2001) (deferred adjudication/probation does not qualify when enhancement requires actual imprisonment)
Perez-Gonzalez v. Holder, 667 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 2012) (use of the modified categorical approach when statutes are divisible)
United States v. Jackson, 453 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2006) (appellate affirmance may rest on any ground supported by the record)