United States v. Fredi Segovia
770 F.3d 351
5th Cir.2014Background
- Fredi J. Segovia, a citizen of El Salvador, pleaded guilty to being an alien unlawfully in the U.S. after prior deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- The district court adopted the PSR and imposed a 51-month sentence plus three years supervised release.
- The PSR applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a prior Maryland conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon.
- Segovia did not object in district court; on appeal he raised three challenges to the enhancement.
- The Eleventh Circuit panel reviewed the characterization of the prior offense under the Guidelines and, because Segovia forfeited the issue below, applied plain-error review but found no error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Segovia) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland conspiracy is broader than the generic conspiracy required by Application Note 5 | Maryland conspiracy does not require an overt act, so it is broader than the generic conspiracy and cannot be a COV | Application Note 5 applies to conspiracies generally; no overt-act requirement is necessary for state-law conspiracies under § 2L1.2 | Rejected — Application Note 5 covers conspiracies to commit COVs regardless of an overt-act element; Pasacio‑Rodriguez controls |
| Whether Maryland robbery (including theft of services) is outside the generic robbery enumerated in § 2L1.2 | Maryland robbery criminalizes theft of services, broader than generic robbery, so the object offense is not a COV enumerated offense | Robbery with a dangerous weapon under Maryland law requires force or threat and therefore fits the § 2L1.2 catch‑all definition of a COV | Rejected — regardless of enumeration, Maryland robbery with a deadly weapon has as an element the use or threatened use of force and thus is a COV |
| Whether conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon lacks the "element" of force because conspiracy can succeed without force actually being used | A conspiracy conviction can occur without any use/attempted use/threat of force, so conspiracy does not have force as an element | Application Note 5 expressly counts conspiracies to commit offenses listed in subsection (b)(1); because the substantive robbery offense is a COV, conspiracy to commit it is also a COV | Rejected — Application Note 5 plainly includes conspiracy to commit a COV; conspiracy to commit robbery with a deadly weapon is a COV |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stoker, 706 F.3d 643 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for COV characterization)
- United States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain‑error review framework)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2012) (Application Note 5 construed to cover conspiracies to commit certain federal offenses)
- United States v. Pascacio-Rodriguez, 749 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2014) (Application Note 5 applies to state‑law conspiracies; no overt‑act requirement imposed)
- United States v. Herrera, 647 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2011) (use of generic crime meaning when Guidelines are undefined)
- United States v. Olalde-Hernandez, 630 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2011) (statute-of-conviction invalidates COV enhancement if it covers conduct outside the enumerated offense)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (use of generic, contemporary meaning for defining predicate offenses under the Guidelines)