United States v. Carlos Urbina-Fuentes
900 F.3d 687
5th Cir.2018Background
- Defendant Carlos Urbina‑Fuentes, a Honduran national with prior deportations, pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in February 2016 (8 U.S.C. § 1326).
- The Probation Office prepared a PSR and (incorrectly) used the 2016 Sentencing Guidelines to calculate offense level and enhancements; no party objected at sentencing.
- Under the 2016 Guidelines the PSR applied two four‑level enhancements (prior unlawful‑reentry felony and prior Florida attempted burglary) and a 3‑level acceptance reduction, yielding total offense level 13 and a 24–30 month range.
- Under the 2015 Guidelines (the edition tied to the last overt act in Feb. 2016) the Florida burglary could not qualify as an aggravated felony (sentence was 364 days) nor as a generic “crime of violence” because Florida law includes curtilage—so the applicable range would have been 15–21 months.
- The district court sentenced Urbina‑Fuentes to 30 months; the Fifth Circuit found the court plainly erred in using the 2016 Guidelines, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether using the 2016 Guidelines violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because the 2015 Guidelines (controlling for the defendant's conduct) produced a lower range | Urbina‑Fuentes: 2015 Guidelines apply; they yield a lower range (15–21 mos) because his Florida burglary conviction is neither an aggravated felony nor a generic crime of violence | Government: error conceded but argued it was not plain at sentencing given pre‑Mathis Fifth Circuit precedent applying the modified categorical approach to Florida burglary | Held: Error violated Ex Post Facto and was plain on appeal; resentencing required |
| Whether the Florida burglary conviction qualifies as a generic “burglary of a dwelling” (a crime of violence) under the categorical/modified categorical approach | Urbina‑Fuentes: Florida statute is overbroad because it includes curtilage, thus nongeneric and indivisible; cannot support the 16‑level enhancement under 2015 Guidelines | Government: earlier Fifth Circuit precedent permitted use of the modified categorical approach so the issue was not obviously erroneous at sentencing | Held: Florida burglary statute is indivisible and overbroad (curtilage included); conviction does not qualify as generic burglary of a dwelling for 2015 Guidelines |
| Whether the modified categorical approach could be used to isolate a generic sub‑element of the Florida statute post‑Mathis | Urbina‑Fuentes: Mathis precludes using the modified categorical approach because the Florida statute is indivisible; Mathis controls | Government: applying Mathis to Florida burglary would be an extension of precedent and not "plain" error at sentencing | Held: Mathis makes the statute’s indivisibility clear; modified categorical approach unavailable to exclude curtilage |
| Whether plain‑error relief should be granted under Olano/Rosales‑Mireles fourth prong | Urbina‑Fuentes: the sentencing disparity was significant and court did not consider the correct (lower) range; ordinary practice favors relief | Government: district court said it would impose the same sentence regardless of Guidelines; defendant’s criminal history and removals counsel against relief | Held: Fourth prong satisfied—no countervailing factors sufficient to deny relief; remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (divisibility/modified categorical approach framework)
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (clarifying fourth‑prong plain‑error analysis in sentencing cases)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (incorrect Guidelines range can affect substantial rights)
- Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (Ex Post Facto concerns when Guidelines increase retrospective sentencing risk)
- United States v. Reyes‑Ochoa, 861 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2017) (Fifth Circuit applied Mathis and found plain error regarding statute divisibility)
- United States v. Gomez‑Guerra, 485 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 2007) (Florida burglary statute’s inclusion of curtilage makes it broader than generic burglary)