United States v. German Castro-Martinez, 713 F. App'x 481

In 2014 Castro‑Martinez pleaded guilty to aggravated illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; at sentencing the probation office treated a prior Tennessee aggravated burglary conviction as a "crime of violence," triggering a 16‑level U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 enhancement and a 46–57 month advisory range.
The district court granted a downward variance to 34 months; this court affirmed on direct appeal in 2015. The Supreme Court remanded in light of Mathis v. United States, and the Sixth Circuit later held Tennessee’s aggravated burglary statute indivisible in United States v. Stitt.
The government conceded post‑Mathis/Stitt that the Tennessee conviction does not qualify as a § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) crime of violence, so the correct advisory range would have been 18–24 months (an 8‑level enhancement).
The government argued the miscalculation of the Guidelines range was harmless because the district court said it would have imposed the same 34‑month sentence even under the lower range.
The district court justified the downward variance principally by the defendant’s young age at the time of the underlying offense, peer pressure, prior deportations, and the seriousness of the burglary offense; the court also stated, when asked, that the sentence would have been the same under the lower range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tennessee aggravated burglary qualifies as a U.S.S.G. "crime of violence" for a 16‑level enhancement	Gov: Historically treated as qualifying; but later concedes it does not after Mathis/Stitt	Castro‑Martinez: Statute does not match the categorical definition of "burglary of a dwelling" and thus cannot support the 16‑level enhancement	Court: Government conceded and prior precedent after Mathis/Stitt shows the conviction does not qualify, so the correct Guidelines range is 18–24 months
Whether the erroneous higher Guidelines range was harmless error such that the 34‑month sentence stands	Gov: District court said it would have imposed the same sentence under the correct range, so error was harmless	Castro‑Martinez: The court’s brief alternative remark is insufficient to establish harmlessness; the Guidelines error presumptively prejudicial	Court: Remand for resentencing required because the district court did not provide a clear, independent explanation showing with certainty that the sentence was chosen irrespective of the incorrect, higher Guidelines range

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (limits use of the categorical approach; divisibility requirement)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (harmlessness standard for Guidelines calculation errors; court may find harmless if sentence independent of erroneous range)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must adequately explain any deviation from the Guidelines)
United States v. Stitt, 860 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. en banc 2017) (Tennessee aggravated burglary is broader and indivisible under Mathis)
United States v. Morrison, 852 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2017) (harmless‑error doctrine for Guidelines calculation)
United States v. Ozier, 796 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2015) (earlier Sixth Circuit treatment of Tennessee burglary prior to Mathis)
United States v. Lanesky, 494 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2007) (government burden to prove harmlessness of sentencing error)
United States v. Johnson, 467 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2006) (standard that government must show error did not result in a more severe sentence)