United States v. Esparza-Perez
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9678
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to reenter the U.S. unlawfully after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- The district court increased the offense level by 16 under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a prior Arkansas aggravated assault conviction being a crime of violence.
- The prior conviction arose from Ark. Code § 5-13-204(a)(1) (2003), defined disjunctively with multiple subsections.
- Arkansas charging information alleged conduct tracking Ark. § 5-13-204(a)(1), involving ramming vehicles into deputies.
- Esparza-Perez challenges whether the Arkansas conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines, reviewing de novo.
- Court vacates the sentence and remands for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Arkansas conviction is a crime of violence under §2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). | Esparza-Perez argues Arkansas §5-13-204(a)(1) lacks the generic aggravated assault meaning. | The government contends the conviction falls within the enumerated or residual crime of violence. | No; conviction not a crime of violence; remand for resentencing. |
| Whether the statute’s disjunctive elements affect its classification as crime of violence. | Empirical focus on subpart (a)(1) aligns with generic aggravated assault. | Disjunctive structure requires examining charging document to identify the basis of conviction. | Conviction not within generic aggravated assault; not a crime of violence. |
| Whether the district court erred by treating the Arkansas offense as enumerated or as having physical force as an element. | Arkansas offense does not require actual contact or injury. | Guidelines treat such offenses as potentially within the category of violence. | Arkansas statute lacks necessary element; not a crime of violence; vacate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iniguez-Barba v. United States, 485 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2007) (defines generic, contemporary meaning of aggravated assault and method of comparison)
- Fierro-Reyna v. United States, 466 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2006) (explains element-based vs enumerated offenses in §2L1.2)
- Mungia-Portillo v. United States, 484 F.3d 813 (5th Cir. 2007) (allows looking to charging documents to identify subpart of disjunctive statute)
- Murillo-Lopez v. United States, 444 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2006) (limits records to charging document, plea, colloquy, or explicit findings)
- Gonzalez-Ramirez v. United States, 477 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2007) (cites elements-based approach in violence determinations)
- Izaguirre-Flores v. United States, 405 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2005) (discusses whether statute encompasses prohibited behavior beyond plain meaning)
- Calderon-Pena v. United States, 383 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc per curiam on related issue of prior offenses and violence)