910 F.3d 194
5th Cir.2018Background
- Defendant Jose Nino-Carreon pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal and was sentenced to 50 months’ imprisonment.
- The PSR scored three prior convictions from 2003–2004 for criminal-history points; defendant did not object at sentencing.
- Defendant argued those convictions should not count under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(2) because their sentences were imposed more than ten years before his earliest offense date as determined by the court.
- The district court treated August 17, 2016 (date of apprehension), as the earliest offense date and scored the older convictions; defendant later argued the triggering date should be the date of illegal reentry, not apprehension.
- The PSR evidence did not show a reentry date before 2015; the district court nonetheless discussed extensive criminal history and imposed 50 months based on factors beyond the Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court plainly erred in scoring three 2003–2004 convictions under § 4A1.2(e)(2) | Nino-Carreon: court erred because his earliest-offense date was Aug 17, 2016, so those convictions were outside the 10-year window | Government: triggering date is date of illegal reentry; court did not err | Court: error occurred—PSR supports earliest offense later than 2014, so those priors were improperly scored |
| Whether the error is clear or obvious under plain-error review | Nino-Carreon: error is clear from PSR statements | Government: suggested probation implicitly found earlier reentry, disputing clarity | Court: error was clear based on PSR; first two prongs of plain-error satisfied |
| Whether the error affected substantial rights (prejudice prong) | Nino-Carreon: scoring error could change Guidelines and sentence | Government: even with correct range, sentence would likely be the same due to district court’s reasoning | Court: no reasonable probability of different outcome; district court relied on factors independent of Guidelines, so no prejudice |
| Whether appellate court should correct forfeited error | Nino-Carreon: asks relief under plain-error doctrine | Government: opposes relief, noting unchanged criminal-history category and sentencing rationale | Court: declines to correct error because defendant failed to show affected substantial rights; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error review requires showing error, that it is clear or obvious, and that it affected substantial rights)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (erroneous Guidelines range can usually show a reasonable probability of a different outcome but not always)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (defendant must show reasonable probability that, but for the error, outcome would differ)
- United States v. Ponce, 896 F.3d 726 (for § 4A1.2(e) the triggering date is date of illegal reentry, not date of discovery)
- United States v. Carlile, 884 F.3d 554 (plain-error review applicable where defendant failed to object to PSR scoring)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (standards for correcting forfeited errors)