United States v. Juventino Gonzalez, 739 F.3d 420

Defendant Juventino Ibarra Gonzalez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to 51 months’ imprisonment.
At sentencing the PSR counted two prior state prison terms separately, adding two 3-point increases under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a).
The two prior sentences were for (1) burglary (offense date Mar. 20, 2006; sentence date unspecified here) and (2) possession for sale of marijuana (offense date Feb. 26, 2008; sentenced May 23, 2008); the marijuana sentence was imposed on May 23, 2008 and the other on June 3, 2008.
Gonzalez argued the two prior sentences should be treated as one under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) because the hearings had been scheduled for the same day and only separated by courthouse logistics.
The district court also added 2 points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), finding Gonzalez committed the instant offense while on parole; Gonzalez argued his parole terminated automatically upon deportation.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held the Guideline’s plain-text rule required separate counting and found no clear error in the district court’s factual finding that Gonzalez remained on parole when he illegally reentered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two prior state sentences should be counted as one under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2)	N/A (Government sought proper calculation)	The two sentences should be treated as one because the sentencing hearings were effectively scheduled the same day and separation was a geographic accident	Counts separately: § 4A1.2(a)(2) requires same charging instrument or same-day imposition; neither was met, so two 3-point additions affirmed
Whether 2 points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) apply for committing the offense while on parole	N/A	Parole terminated automatically on deportation under state policy, so no enhancement; alternatively, non-revocable/unsupervised parole is not a “criminal justice sentence”	Enhancement affirmed: record showed parole continued until Apr. 1, 2012 and non-revocable/unsupervised parole satisfies the Guideline’s supervisory-component definition

United States v. Lichtenberg, 631 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of Guidelines interpretation)
United States v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010) (clear-error review of sentencing factual findings)
United States v. Jones, 698 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2012) (rejecting equitable exceptions to § 4A1.2’s plain text)
United States v. Graves, 418 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2005) (treating separately imposed sentences as separate despite concurrent sentences or related plea references)