United States v. Garcia-Guerrero
635 F.3d 435
9th Cir.2011Background
- Garcia-Guerrero drove a van across the border with two five-gallon bottles; paid $500 and told to abandon the containers at a gas station.
- The bottles contained hypophosphorous acid, a listed chemical precursor used to make methamphetamine.
- He pled guilty to failing to declare imported merchandise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545, not to importing a listed chemical under § 960.
- The district court applied the cross-reference from § 2T3.1 to § 2D1.11, resulting in a base offense level of 30 and a 46-month sentence.
- Appendix A and related guidelines do not list § 2D1.11 for § 545 offenses; the court’s error was calculating the guideline range under § 2D1.11.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2D1.11 cross-reference applies to § 545 offenses | Garcia-Guerrero contends cross-reference to § 2D1.11 governs | Garcia-Guerrero argues § 2D1.11 not applicable to § 545 | No; § 2D1.11 not intended for § 545 offenses |
| Whether the conviction under § 545 supports § 2D1.11 as base level | The government relies on cross-reference to § 2D1.11 | He did not admit all elements of § 960 importation offense | Cross-reference inappropriate; base level should reflect § 545 conduct only |
| Whether failure to declare § 545 conviction creates harmless error given disparity concerns | Use of § 2D1.11 yields higher sentence | Disparity concerns support no harsher result | Error not harmless; required remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Calderon Espinosa, 569 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2009) (remand for incorrect guideline calculation when error not harmless)
- United States v. Daas, 198 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 1999) (guidelines aim to reduce sentencing disparities)
- United States v. Romero, 293 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2002) (commentary lists statutes of conviction in guideline sections)
- United States v. Lawton, 193 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1999) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius applied to guideline interpretation)
- United States v. Reyes-Pacheco, 248 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) (sentence-departure and guideline interpretation standards)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court 1993) (rules that guideline commentary is authoritative unless inconsistent with statute or Constitution)