United States v. Diego Guzman-Rendon, 864 F.3d 409

Guzman‑Rendon was convicted of illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326); base offense level 8 under the Guidelines.
He had multiple prior Florida convictions: distribution (Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)), use of a two‑way communications device to facilitate a felony (Fla. Stat. § 934.215), and conspiracy to sell cocaine.
The probation officer initially recommended a 16‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior drug‑trafficking offense, then removed it after defense cited Sarmientos; PSR revised to offense level 10 (range 8–14 months).
The government argued the enhancement should apply (citing Juarez‑Velazquez); defense relied on Sarmientos and Medina to oppose it.
The district court announced it would apply the 16‑level enhancement, producing a 41–51 month guideline range, and sentenced Guzman‑Rendon to 41 months; the court also said it would impose that sentence even if the lower (8–14 month) range were correct.
On appeal the parties disputed whether the Florida convictions qualify as a § 2L1.2 drug‑trafficking offense; the government alternatively argued any error was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Guzman‑Rendon’s Florida convictions qualify as a § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) drug‑trafficking offense	Gov: Florida convictions supply a predicate for the 16‑level enhancement	Guzman‑Rendon: Sarmientos/Medina show Florida convictions are not qualifying drug‑trafficking offenses	Court did not resolve the merits; treated potential error as harmless and affirmed sentence
Whether any miscalculation of the Guidelines range was harmless error	Gov: Even if enhancement improper, error harmless because court said it would impose the same sentence	Guzman‑Rendon: Harmless‑error doctrine requires more precise statement or the proper procedure under Ibarra‑Luna	Court applied Richardson harmless‑error framework and found error (if any) harmless because the court considered the lower range and stated it would impose the same sentence/range anyway
Whether the district court adequately considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when saying it would impose the same sentence	Gov: Court discussed recidivism, seriousness, deterrence — factors fit within § 3553(a)	Guzman‑Rendon: Court did not explicitly recite all § 3553(a) factors; statement about same range inadequate	Court found the record shows the court considered § 3553(a) factors and appellate review is deferential; Richardson applies even though the court said “same range” rather than “same sentence”

United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012) (harmless‑error framework: court considered both ranges and stated it would impose the same sentence)
United States v. Ibarra‑Luna, 628 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2010) (describes alternative harmless‑error showing when correct range not considered)
Sarmientos v. Holder, 742 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2014) (challenge to state conviction as predicate for § 2L1.2 enhancement)
United States v. Juarez‑Velazquez, [citation="577 F. App'x 254"] (5th Cir.) (government cited to support enhancement application)
United States v. Medina, [citation="589 F. App'x 277"] (5th Cir.) (defense authority cited against enhancement)
United States v. Aldawsari, 740 F.3d 1015 (5th Cir. 2014) (discussing deference in appellate review of § 3553(a) application)
United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2013) (same)
United States v. Duhon, 541 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008) (precedent on harmless‑error distinctions referenced)
United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.2d 647 (5th Cir. 2008) (same)

The judgment was affirmed on the basis that any Guidelines‑calculation error was harmless.