United States v. Eric Lopez-Cano, 516 F. App'x 350

Lopez-Cano pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by a previously deported alien.
The PSR initially calculated 0–6 months and a one-year supervised release range; a supplemental addendum increased the range to 30–37 months for a 12-level drug trafficking enhancement under § 2L1.2, and two–three years for supervised release.
The enhancement rested on Lopez-Cano’s California conviction for possessing for sale methamphetamine.
At sentencing, the government introduced a certified case summary; the district court found the enhancement proved and set a sentence of 30 months and three years of supervised release.
Lopez-Cano challenged the enhancement as unsupported under Shepard; the district court’s reliance on docket sheet/case summary documents was deemed improper, triggering remand for resentencing.
The court also held that the prior conviction could not be properly deemed an aggravated felony under § 1326(b)(2) on remand if the drug trafficking enhancement is not established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the California conviction a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B)?	Lopez-Cano argues the government failed to prove the substance involved and that documents are not Shepard-approved.	Lopez-Cano contends the charging documents and records suffice to establish the offense.	Remand for supplementation; district court erred in relying on non-Shepard documents; not clearly harmless.
Is the conviction an aggravated felony under § 1326(b)(2)?	Same insufficiency of documents applies to establishing an aggravated felony.	If the prior offense cannot be proven as an aggravated felony, sentencing under § 1326(b)(1) may be required on remand.	Remand to determine whether the conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony; potential reform to §1326(b)(1) if not proven.
Was the three-year supervised release term proper given the deportable-alien status and post-amendment guidance?	The district court erred by applying pre-amendment § 5D1.1(c) guidance without notice.	The district court did consider deterrence and protection; error was plain but may be cured on remand.	Plain error; remand directs applying the amended § 5D1.1 guidance on supervised release.

Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (permissible to look beyond the statute of conviction for Shepard documents)
Martinez-Paramo, 380 F.3d 799 (5th Cir. 2004) (indicates when information exists but is not in record, may not prove the charged subsection)
Garcia-Arrellano, 522 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2008) (indictment/state judgment can support Shepard if properly approved)
Ford, 509 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2007) (affirming use of state charging documents for a controlled-substance offense)
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error framework for misapplication of § 1326(b)(2) and remand guidance)
Lara-Espinoza, 488 F. App’x 833 (5th Cir. 2012) (remand guidance when pre-amendment § 5D1.1 applied to deportable alien)