United States v. David Rojas-Ibarra
669 F. App'x 269
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant David Rojas‑Ibarra pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- Presentence report (unobjected to) recommended a total offense level of 21 and criminal history category III, yielding a Guidelines range of 46–57 months; district court sentenced him to 46 months.
- District court applied a 16‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation (Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)), treating it as a “crime of violence.”
- Rojas‑Ibarra raised the challenge to the enhancement for the first time on appeal; the parties agreed the record does not identify which subsection of § 30.02(a) he was convicted under, preventing classification as burglary of a dwelling under the modified categorical approach.
- Because Rojas‑Ibarra did not preserve the issue, the Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error and found the error obvious, prejudicial (would have reduced the Guidelines range to 18–24 months), and warranting corrective relief.
- The Fifth Circuit granted the Government’s unopposed motion, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 16‑level § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement was properly applied based on a prior Texas burglary conviction | Rojas‑Ibarra argued the prior conviction cannot be shown to be burglary of a dwelling under the modified categorical approach | Government argued the enhancement was proper (initially unopposed at sentencing) | Court held enhancement was improperly applied because record lacks which § 30.02(a) subsection was used; error was plain and affected substantial rights, warranting resentencing |
| Standard of review for an unpreserved sentencing challenge | Rojas‑Ibarra asserted plain‑error review applies and must be met | Government accepted plain‑error framework after recognizing mistake | Court applied plain‑error review and found the error clear, prejudicial, and deserving of correction |
| Prejudice from erroneous Guidelines calculation | Rojas‑Ibarra argued error affected substantial rights because proper range would be much lower | Government conceded error affected substantial rights in its motion | Court agreed: correct Guidelines range (without enhancement) would be 18–24 months, so prejudice shown |
| Whether to exercise discretion to correct plain error | Rojas‑Ibarra asked court to vacate and remand for resentencing | Government moved to remand and supported correcting the sentence | Court exercised its discretion to correct the error and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard for preserved vs. unpreserved sentencing challenges)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error review framework and requirements)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for correcting forfeited error under plain‑error doctrine)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (showing reasonable probability of different outcome from Guideline range error)
- United States v. Castaneda, 740 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2014) (exercise of appellate discretion to correct sentencing error)
- United States v. Conde‑Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2014) (application of the modified categorical approach to § 30.02(a) convictions)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (addressing categorical/modified categorical approach distinctions)