United States v. Jose Chavez-Cuevas
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12310
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jose Maria Chavez-Cuevas, a Mexican national, was previously deported twice after a 2003 California robbery conviction and an illegal-reentry conviction; he reentered the U.S. in 2015 to visit his ill mother and was charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- Chavez-Cuevas pleaded guilty before a magistrate judge after a full colloquy; the magistrate recommended the district court accept the plea, but the district judge never explicitly accepted the plea orally at sentencing.
- At sentencing the district court applied a 16-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on the prior California robbery conviction, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent (United States v. Becerril-Lopez).
- Chavez-Cuevas argued on appeal (1) the district court erred by sentencing without adjudicating guilt and (2) Becerril-Lopez was undermined by Supreme Court decisions (Descamps and Mathis) so the § 2L1.2 enhancement was improper.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the unpreserved plea-acceptance claim for plain error and reviewed the sentencing enhancement de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by sentencing without expressly accepting the guilty plea | Gov: District court impliedly accepted plea; no magic words required | Chavez-Cuevas: Article III judge must explicitly accept felony pleas; failure is structural error | No plain error; even if error, not structural and not plain because magistrate conducted full colloquy and record shows voluntary plea |
| Whether Becerril‑Lopez remains good law after Descamps and Mathis for applying § 2L1.2 16‑level enhancement based on Cal. Penal Code § 211 | Gov: Becerril‑Lopez controls in Ninth Circuit; California robbery is categorically a crime of violence under Guidelines | Chavez-Cuevas: Descamps/Mathis abrogate Becerril‑Lopez; § 211 is overbroad and not a categorical match | Held: Becerril‑Lopez remains controlling; its multi‑offense comparison (robbery or extortion) fits the Guidelines’ definition, so § 211 qualifies and enhancement stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (clarified categorical vs. modified categorical approaches for divisible statutes)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (reinforced that analysis must focus on statutory elements, not underlying conduct)
- United States v. Becerril‑Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2008) (held Cal. Penal Code § 211 robbery is categorically a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review framework for unpreserved claims)
- United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (scope of magistrate judge functions and Article III supervision principles)
- United States v. Dixon, 805 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (held Cal. § 211 is not divisible for modified categorical analysis)
- United States v. Yamashiro, 788 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussed structural error doctrine)