United States v. Gustavo Castaneda
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25306
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Gustavo Loeza Castaneda pleaded guilty to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326); PSR assigned base offense level 8.
- PSR applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because of a prior Texas felony conviction for burglary of a habitation (Tex. Penal Code § 30.02).
- The PSR calculated adjusted offense level 24, reduced 2 levels for acceptance, yielding total offense level 22 and a Guidelines range of 51–63 months; district court sentenced to 58 months.
- Castaneda did not object at sentencing; on appeal he argued the § 30.02 conviction was under subsection (a)(3) (which lacks the specific intent element) and thus is not an enumerated “burglary of a dwelling” for § 2L1.2.
- Government conceded plain error; Fifth Circuit independently reviewed and examined the indictment, judgment, and judicial confession to determine which subsection formed the basis of the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Castaneda) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 16-level § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) crime-of-violence enhancement applied based on the Texas burglary conviction | The conviction was under Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(3) (enter and commit/attempt theft) which lacks the specific intent element and therefore is not a generic burglary | District court treated the conviction as an enumerated “burglary of a dwelling” (generic burglary) and applied the 16-level enhancement; Government conceded error on appeal | Vacated sentence and remanded: conviction did not necessarily admit the specific-intent element required for generic burglary, so the 16-level enhancement was improperly applied (plain error) |
| Standard of review / burden to prove prior conviction qualifies for enhancement | N/A (argument framed around whether plea admitted generic-burglary elements) | Government bears burden by preponderance to prove plea necessarily admitted elements of the generic offense | Court applied plain-error review (defendant did not object below) and held Government failed to meet its burden under Shepard/Taylor framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defines generic burglary as unlawful entry with intent to commit a crime)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits which documents may be used to determine whether a plea establishes elements of a prior offense)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review standards)
- United States v. Constante, 544 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2008) (Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1) is generic burglary; § 30.02(a)(3) is not)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (crime-of-violence methodology; limited application when offense is not defined at common law)
- United States v. Esparza-Perez, 681 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2012) (discusses records courts may consult to identify the statutory subsection forming the basis of conviction)