United States v. Juan Espinoza-Bazaldua
711 F. App'x 737
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Espinoza-Bazaldua pleaded guilty to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. §1326) and faced sentencing under U.S.S.G. §2L1.2 (2015).
- Probation applied a 16-level enhancement under §2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) because he had a prior Indiana felony conviction for "dealing in marijuana" (Ind. Code §35-48-4-10 (2005)) with a sentence over 13 months.
- He objected, arguing Indiana’s statute is broader than the Guidelines’ generic definition of "drug trafficking offense" because it criminalizes financing manufacture/delivery and is indivisible, so the enhancement should not apply.
- The district court overruled the objection, concluding financing for manufacture/delivery is encompassed (as aiding/abetting) and applied the 16-level increase but granted a downward variance to the guideline range that would apply under the 2016 Guidelines, sentencing him to 37 months.
- On appeal Espinoza-Bazaldua challenged only the district court’s application of the 16-level drug-trafficking enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana’s "dealing in marijuana" statute is a "drug trafficking offense" under U.S.S.G. §2L1.2 | Espinoza-Bazaldua: statute is broader because it criminalizes financing purchases (including personal-use purchases) and is indivisible, so categorical match fails | Government: statute matches the Guidelines or, at minimum, defendant waived/relinquished objection; enhancement applies | Court: Affirmed. Defendant failed to show a realistic probability Indiana prosecutes conduct outside the Guidelines’ generic definition, so enhancement was properly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez-Negrete, 772 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2014) (de novo review applies to §2L1.2 categorical questions)
- United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 853 F.3d 218 (5th Cir. 2017) (defendant must show realistic probability state prosecutes nongeneric conduct)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (categorical vs. modified categorical approach; divisibility analysis)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limited documents permissible under modified categorical approach)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (two-step sentencing: correct Guidelines calculation then individualized §3553(a) analysis)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (district court must begin sentencing by correctly calculating Guidelines range)
- United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016) (application of categorical approach in Fifth Circuit)
- United States v. Brown, 727 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 2013) (preservation of Guidelines objections by objecting to PSR and renewing at sentencing)
- Lopez v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 484 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding Indiana dealing statute facially broader than comparable federal offense because it criminalizes financing)