United States v. Gerardo Munoz-Gonzalez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1839
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Munoz-Gonzalez, a noncitizen, was charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for unlawful presence after prior removal and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.
- Initial PSR recommended a 4-level enhancement for prior felony drug convictions; an addendum identified a 1994 arson conviction (which killed his wife) that had been fully pardoned in 2004.
- The pardon documents showed the pardon was granted to facilitate potential future reentry to the U.S., not because of innocence or legal error; the pardon was granted after removal and Munoz later committed felony drug offenses.
- The district court applied a 12-level "crime of violence" enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on the pardoned arson, gave a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and imposed a 35‑month sentence.
- Munoz-Gonzalez appealed, arguing a pardon for this offense should prevent counting the conviction for the § 2L1.2 enhancement; the district court found the pardon was not for innocence and that the enhancement was properly applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pardoned prior conviction counts as a "conviction" for the 12‑level § 2L1.2 crime-of-violence enhancement | Munoz: A pardon should preclude counting the conviction unless it was granted for innocence or constitutional error; ambiguity in "conviction" must be construed for the defendant | Government/District Ct: A pardon given for reasons other than innocence does not erase the conviction for sentencing enhancements; prior convictions remain relevant | The court affirmed: a pardon not granted for innocence does not bar the § 2L1.2 enhancement; the arson conviction properly supported the 12‑level increase |
| Whether any potential error in applying the enhancement was harmless given the court’s consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Munoz: If enhancement improper, sentence should be vacated or remanded | District Ct: Even if enhancement were erroneous, the court would impose the same sentence after weighing § 3553(a) factors | The court found no reversible error and upheld the sentence, noting the district court would have imposed the same sentence under § 3553(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlesi v. New York, 233 U.S. 51 (1914) (a pardon not based on innocence does not preclude consideration of the prior offense for later punishment)
- Watkins v. Thomas, 623 F.2d 387 (5th Cir. 1980) (pardons granted for reasons other than proof of innocence do not obliterate prior transgressions for sentencing purposes)
- Gurleski v. United States, 405 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1968) (same principle regarding the effect of non-innocence pardons)
- Hernandez-Galvan v. United States, 632 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2011) (appellate standard for reviewing whether a prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines)