United States v. Jorge Ponce-Flores
900 F.3d 215
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Jorge Enrique Ponce‑Flores pleaded guilty to unlawful presence after removal following an aggravated‑felony conviction.
- He had three California state convictions imposed the same day: 4 years (possession for sale), 2 years (possession of a deadly weapon, concurrent with the 4‑year), and 1 year (transportation, consecutive to the 4‑year), yielding a 5‑year aggregate.
- Probation applied a 10‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) for a prior sentence of five years or more based on the aggregated 5‑year total.
- Ponce‑Flores did not object in district court and received a 30‑month sentence; he appealed, raising plain‑error review of the enhancement.
- Central legal dispute: whether the Chapter 4 sentence‑aggregation rule (U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2)) applies to § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) such that multiple prior sentences imposed the same day and in the same charging instrument may be aggregated to trigger the 10‑level enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4A1.2(a)(2) sentence‑aggregation applies to § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) | § 2L1.2(b)(2) refers to a single conviction sentence; expressio unius shows aggregation rule does not apply, so only longest single sentence should count (8‑level) | Guidelines read as a whole; § 2L1.2 cites § 4A1.2 definitions and nothing precludes applying § 4A1.2(a)(2); sister circuits have aggregated | Court declined to find plain error: unsettled law and reasonable dispute exist, so enhancement stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carlile, 884 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2018) (plain‑error review framework when defendant failed to object)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (three‑part plain‑error test)
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (discretion to correct forfeited error affects fairness/integrity)
- United States v. Torres, 856 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 2017) (errors identified purely from guideline text are plain)
- United States v. Martinez‑Varela, 531 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (applied § 4A1.2 aggregation to § 2L1.2 and upheld aggregation)