United States v. Ever Medina
718 F.3d 364
4th Cir.2013Background
- Medina pled guilty in Maryland in 2004 to possession of a concealed dangerous weapon and possession of marijuana; the state issued a probation before judgment disposition (diversion) with 18 months probation and no judgment entered.
- Medina was later convicted of DUI in 2006–2007, triggering deportation to El Salvador.
- After an illegal reentry, Medina returned to the U.S. and was arrested in 2008 for driving without a valid license and sentenced to 60 days in jail.
- Approximately two years later, Medina pled guilty to second-degree assault and received a 10-year suspended sentence plus five years of probation, and was detained by ICE shortly after sentencing.
- In 2011, Medina was federally indicted for unlawful reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and pled guilty; sentencing involved whether the 2004 diversionary disposition qualified as a § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) enhancement.
- The district court held the 2004 disposition was a predicate conviction under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) and applied a four-level enhancement, ultimately sentencing Medina to 30 months in prison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a diversionary disposition counts as a conviction under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) | Medina: diversionary dispositions are not convictions under federal law for § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D). | Government: diversionary dispositions can constitute convictions for § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D). | Diversionary disposition can be a conviction for § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D). |
| Whether federal law, not Maryland law, governs the definition of conviction for § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) | Medina: state-law definitions should control. | Government: federal law governs interpretation of the Guidelines unless a statute directs otherwise. | Federal law governs; § 1101(a)(48) controls the definition of conviction for § 2L1.2. |
| Whether § 1101(a)(48) defines a conviction to include diversionary dispositions arising from guilty pleas | Medina argues § 1101(a)(48) is in immigration context and not applicable to § 2L1.2. | Government: § 1101(a)(48) includes diversionary dispositions and applies here. | Yes; Medina's 2004 diversionary disposition qualifies as a conviction under § 2L1.2. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reinoso, 350 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2003) (confirms § 2L1.2 does not limit to state-law convictions)
- United States v. Cuevas, 75 F.3d 778 (1st Cir. 1996) (diversionary dispositions can be convictions under § 2L1.2)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (a guilty plea is a conviction for purposes of sentencing enhancements)
- Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1927) (a guilty plea is itself a conviction)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2004) (a guilty plea is, at base, a conviction)
- United States v. Ramirez, 367 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2004) (deferred adjudication probation as a predicate conviction under § 2L1.2)
- United States v. Anderson, 328 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2003) (diversionary dispositions treated as convictions)
- United States v. Zamudio, 314 F.3d 517 (10th Cir. 2002) (diversionary dispositions constitute predicate convictions)