United States v. Bulfrano Alonzo-Garcia, 542 F. App'x 412

Bulfrano Alonzo‑Garcia pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.
The PSR applied a 16‑level U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement based on a 2011 Florida aggravated‑assault conviction, producing a Guidelines range of 46–57 months before a downward departure.
The PSR conflicted about the statutory maximum: one entry referenced a 20‑year maximum under § 1326(b)(2), while another cited a 10‑year maximum under § 1326(b)(1); the written judgment used the 20‑year maximum.
At sentencing the court overruled Alonzo‑Garcia’s objection to the 16‑level enhancement, granted a downward departure, and imposed 30 months’ imprisonment; the parties did not address the statutory‑maximum inconsistency at the hearing.
The government concedes the prior Florida conviction did not produce a one‑year sentence and thus is not an aggravated felony for § 1326 purposes (so the correct statutory maximum is 10 years).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Guidelines enhancement (holding Florida aggravated assault contains a threatened‑physical‑force element) but remanded to reform the judgment to show sentencing under § 1326(b)(1) (10‑year max) and declined to order resentencing under plain‑error review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Florida aggravated assault is a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 residual clause	Alonzo‑Garcia: the Florida offense can encompass non‑physical threats (e.g., stalking) and thus lacks a physical‑force element	Government: Florida "to do violence" means use/threatened use of physical force; Eleventh Circuit agrees	Held: Yes. Florida aggravated assault requires threatened use of physical force and qualifies under the residual clause; 16‑level enhancement affirmed
Whether the written judgment’s 20‑year statutory maximum (§ 1326(b)(2)) requires resentencing when the correct maximum is 10 years (§ 1326(b)(1))	Alonzo‑Garcia: the court may have been influenced by the incorrect 20‑year maximum; argues error warrants relief	Government: concedes the judgment should be reformed to reflect the 10‑year max but argues Alonzo‑Garcia did not preserve the issue and plain‑error review fails	Held: No resentencing. Error is plain but defendant failed to show a reasonable probability the wrong statutory maximum affected sentence; remand only to reform the judgment to reflect the 10‑year maximum

Rodriguez v. United States, 711 F.3d 541 (5th Cir.) (categorical approach review)
Flores‑Gallo v. United States, 625 F.3d 819 (5th Cir.) (state aggravated battery contains physical‑force element)
Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir.) (Florida aggravated assault includes threatened use of physical force)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (ordinary meaning of "physical force")
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error framework)
Mondragon‑Santiago v. United States, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.) (district court’s mistaken statutory‑maximum understanding may not affect substantial rights absent record support)
Bonilla‑Mungia v. United States, 422 F.3d 316 (5th Cir.) (Shepard‑restricted records for narrowing disjunctive statutes)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limits on records courts may consult to identify the statutory basis for a conviction)