United States v. Brandon Montiel-Cortes
849 F.3d 221
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Brandon Montiel‑Cortes pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation; no plea agreement.
- PSR applied a 16‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on a 2013 Nevada robbery conviction (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.380).
- District court applied the enhancement after reviewing state‑court documents (Alford plea, charging papers) and sentenced defendant to 57 months.
- Defendant objected, arguing Nevada robbery is broader than the generic robbery definition (it allows threats of future injury) and thus is not a Guidelines "crime of violence."
- Fifth Circuit agreed district court erred to the extent it relied on the modified categorical approach per Mathis, but reviewed whether the Nevada statute, viewed categorically, necessarily qualifies as a Guidelines "crime of violence."
Issues
| Issue | Montiel‑Cortes's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the modified categorical approach was permissible under Mathis for Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.380 | Modified categorical approach should not be used because the statute is indivisible; Mathis bars treating means as elements | District court acted properly by using state records to identify the factual basis | Court: Mathis precludes the modified categorical approach here; the statute is indivisible so courts must apply the categorical approach |
| Whether Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.380 categorically constitutes a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 (enumerated offenses or force element) | Nevada robbery is broader than generic robbery because it criminalizes fear of future injury, so it does not categorically match generic robbery | The statute still requires contemporaneous force/fear and thus meets generic robbery; in any event, convictions fit an enumerated offense | Court: § 200.380 qualifies as a "crime of violence"—conduct involving immediate danger fits generic robbery; conduct involving future threats fits generic extortion—so no gap remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishing elements from means; limits modified categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (framework for categorical and modified categorical approaches)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (categorical‑match and least‑culpable‑conduct analysis)
- Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (2003) (definition of extortion as obtaining something of value by threats)
- United States v. Harris, 572 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding Nevada robbery that does not meet generic robbery still matches generic extortion)
- United States v. Calderon‑Pena, 383 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2004) (explaining categorical approach review)