United States v. Jorge Castellon-Aragon
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22423
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Castellon-Aragon pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal (8 U.S.C. §1326).
- PSR classified his 2012 California conviction for possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) under Cal. Health & Safety Code §11378 as a drug trafficking offense (≤ 13 months sentence implied).
- Guidelines calculation: 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) leads to an offense level of 12; total offense level 17 and criminal history III; guideline range 30–37 months.
- District court sentenced him to 30 months; defense raised no objections at sentencing.
- On appeal, Castellon-Aragon argues plain error: (i) §11378 is not an aggravated felony for sentencing; (ii) government failed to show methamphetamine involvement via the modified categorical approach; court reviews under plain error standard.
- Court affirms the sentence, finding no plain error and upholding the Government’s reliance on the state-records supporting methamphetamine conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §11378 constitutes an aggravated felony for sentencing. | Castellon-Aragon argues §11378 is not an aggravated felony. | Government contends §11378 supports drug trafficking offense under 2L1.2(b). | Not an aggravated felony; still supports drug-trafficking enhancement under Taylor/Shepard under proper analysis. |
| Whether the state records/proof meet the modified categorical approach to prove methamphetamine involvement. | Castellon-Aragon contends records are not Shepard-approved and do not prove methamphetamine. | Government asserts California complaint (drug charge) narrows to methamphetamine; records suffice. | Records reasonably indicate methamphetamine conviction; not plain error to rely on them. |
| Whether the ruling constitutes plain error requiring reversal. | Plain error because the district court allegedly erred in proof and classification. | No plain error; record supports the enhancement. | No plain error; sentence affirmed. |
| Role of Lopez-Cano as persuasive authority in this plain-error context. | Lopez-Cano undermines reliance on non-Shepard documents. | Lopez-Cano differences do not compel reversal here; state records can be Shepard-approved. | Lopez-Cano not controlling; no plain error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2012) (aggravated felony analysis and drug-trafficking offense scope)
- United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 642 F.3d 658 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussion of aggravated felony scope and Shepard framework)
- United States v. Valle-Montalbo, 474 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2006) (drug- trafficking offense under Taylor approach; applicability to state convictions)
- United States v. Lopez-Cano, 516 F.App’x 350 (5th Cir. 2013) (unpublished; discusses Shepard-compliant documents and pleading to charging instrument; non-precedential but persuasive)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2010) (plain-error standard for newly raised issues in criminal appeals)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (modified categorical approach for state-law convictions under federal guidelines)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (approved documents for parsing state-law offenses under modified approach)