United States v. Dominguez-Rodriguez, 817 F.3d 1190

Defendant Adan Humberto Dominguez-Rodriguez, a Mexican citizen, was found in the U.S. on Jan. 19, 2015 after prior deportation (Dec. 21, 2013) following a federal conviction for possession with intent to distribute ≥50g methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) and a 24-month sentence.
He pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in a Fast Track plea agreement that set base offense level 8 and provided agreed downward adjustments; parties stipulated to a sentence within the resulting Guidelines range.
The PSR applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (prior felony drug-trafficking offense with sentence >13 months), yielding total offense level 17 and a 27–33 month range.
Defendant objected, arguing § 841(a)(1) (possession with intent to distribute) does not match the Guidelines’ generic meaning of “drug trafficking offense” (he relied on Moncrieffe to argue a remuneration/commercial requirement), so at most an 8-level aggravated-felony enhancement should apply.
The district court sided with defendant, sustained the objection, applied only an 8-level (actually used offense level 9) result, and sentenced him to 6 months; the government appealed.
The Tenth Circuit held that § 841(a)(1) possession with intent to distribute categorically matches the Guidelines’ definition of “drug trafficking offense” in Application Note 1 to § 2L1.2, so the 16-level enhancement was required; the case is remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prior conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (possession with intent to distribute) qualifies as a “drug trafficking offense” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)	Government: § 841(a)(1) fits the Sentencing Commission’s Application Note definition of “drug trafficking offense,” so the 16-level enhancement applies	Dominguez-Rodriguez: Moncrieffe requires a generic trafficking definition implying commercial dealing/remuneration; § 841(a)(1) lacks a remuneration element and thus does not categorically match the generic trafficking offense	Court: Apply the Guidelines’ own definition in Application Note 1; § 841(a)(1) elements align with that definition and thus categorically constitutes a “drug trafficking offense,” so the 16-level enhancement is required

Juarez-Galvan v. United States, 572 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir.) (standard of review and categorical-approach guidance)
Castellanos-Barba v. United States, 648 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir.) (categorical approach for § 2L1.2 analysis)
Torres-Romero v. United States, 537 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir.) (use of the modified categorical approach and judicial records)
Castillo v. United States, 811 F.3d 342 (10th Cir.) (context on § 2L1.2 application)
Martinez-Lugo v. United States, 782 F.3d 198 (5th Cir.) (discussing whether § 841 offenses correspond to the Guidelines’ trafficking definition)
Rodriguez-Escareno v. United States, 700 F.3d 751 (5th Cir.) (holding § 841 is a drug-trafficking offense for § 2L1.2 purposes)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (U.S.) (categorical-approach analysis for aggravated-felony/trafficking issues under the INA)