United States v. Luis Rodriguez-Munoz
655 F. App'x 529
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Luis Rodriguez-Munoz convicted previously under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11351 (possession/purchase for sale) and sentenced to two years.
- He was later charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (illegal reentry); the district court applied a 16‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on the prior drug conviction.
- The Guidelines define a "drug trafficking offense" by reference to offenses prohibiting possession with intent to distribute of a “controlled substance” as listed in the federal Controlled Substances Act.
- Section 11351 is broader than the CSA and not a categorical match, but Rodriguez conceded divisibility, allowing the modified categorical approach.
- The government produced Shepard‑approved documents (complaint, plea form, plea colloquy, docket) showing Rodriguez pleaded to Count 1 charging possession for sale of heroin.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding the record unambiguous that the prior conviction involved heroin and thus qualified for the 16‑level enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior § 11351 conviction is a Guidelines "drug trafficking offense" | Gov: Prior conviction involved a CSA substance (heroin) so enhancement applies | Rodriguez: § 11351 is broader than CSA; record ambiguous whether conviction involved a CSA substance | Held: Applying modified categorical approach, Shepard documents show conviction was for heroin; enhancement proper |
| Whether § 11351 is divisible allowing modified categorical approach | Gov: § 11351 is divisible so courts may examine Shepard documents | Rodriguez: (conceded divisibility) no contrary argument preserved | Held: Divisibility conceded and consistent with precedent; modified approach permitted |
| Whether Shepard‑approved record unambiguously links plea to heroin | Gov: Complaint, plea form, plea colloquy, docket tie plea to Count 1 (heroin) | Rodriguez: Record ambiguous; plea needed "as charged in" language per Vidal | Held: No ambiguity; documents consistently reference Count 1 defined in complaint as heroin, Vidal inapplicable |
| Whether quantity allegation dismissal undermines identification of substance | Gov: Dismissal of quantity did not dismiss the underlying heroin possession‑for‑sale charge | Rodriguez: Dismissal could have altered the substantive charge | Held: Quantity dismissal did not erase Count 1’s identification of heroin; conviction still for heroin possession for sale |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jennen, 596 F.3d 594 (9th Cir.) (standard of de novo review for classification under Guidelines)
- United States v. Jackson, 697 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir.) (de novo review authority)
- United States v. Leal‑Vega, 680 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.) (Cal. § 11351 broader than CSA; not a categorical match)
- United States v. Torre‑Jimenez, 771 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir.) (holding § 11351 divisible)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (Sup. Ct.) (limits to categorical/modified categorical approaches)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (Sup. Ct.) (documents allowed under modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.) (discusses when plea record must contain "as charged in" language)
- United States v. Valdavinos‑Torres, 704 F.3d 679 (9th Cir.) (use of documents referencing defined counts to identify controlled substance)