United States v. Manuel Tirado-Yerena
688 F. App'x 782
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tirado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; PSI applied an 8-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) based on two prior Georgia convictions for entering an automobile (theft).
- With the 8-level enhancement and a 3-level acceptance reduction, Tirado’s total offense level was 13, criminal history IV, resulting in a Guidelines range of 24–30 months; without the 8-level enhancement (but with a 4-level alternative), his range would have been 15–21 months.
- Tirado timely objected, arguing his prior Georgia convictions were not “aggravated felonies” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) and thus only a lower enhancement applied. The district court rejected the objection and imposed the 8-level enhancement.
- At sentencing the district court explained detailed § 3553(a) reasoning (repeated reentries, criminal conduct while present, need for deterrence/protection) and stated it would impose the same 25‑month sentence even if the 8‑point enhancement were incorrect.
- Tirado served his term and was deported after custody but remains subject to three years supervised release; he appealed the sentence. The Eleventh Circuit concluded any error in applying the 8‑level enhancement was harmless because the court would have imposed the same sentence based on § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tirado’s prior Georgia convictions qualified as "aggravated felonies" triggering the 8‑level U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) enhancement | Tirado: convictions for entering an automobile are not aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) | Government: both convictions qualify as aggravated felonies, so the 8‑level enhancement applies | Court did not decide the substantive qualification; assumed error arguendo and resolved appeal on harmless‑error grounds (affirmed sentence) |
| Whether imposition of an incorrect Guidelines enhancement was harmless error | Tirado: incorrect enhancement prejudiced him because it raised Guidelines range and affected sentencing | Government: even if guidelines calc was wrong, district court expressly stated it would impose same sentence based on § 3553(a) factors | Held harmless under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) and Molina‑Martinez because judge made clear he would impose same 25‑month sentence independent of the Guidelines and that sentence is reasonable |
| Whether appeal is moot because Tirado was deported after custody (impact on custodial sentence and supervised release) | Tirado: challenges sentencing enhancements and appealed; supervised release remains active so appeal should not be moot | Government: deportation renders appeal moot | Concurrence: custodial‑sentence challenge is moot (no showing of collateral consequence), but challenge to supervised release is live; deportation does not moot supervised release issue; court addressed merits accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Molina‑Martinez, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (an incorrect Guidelines range will most often show a reasonable probability of a different outcome, but harmless‑error exceptions exist when the record shows the judge would have imposed the same sentence)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (standard for harmless error affecting substantial rights)
- United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006) (encourages district courts to state on the record when Guidelines disputes do not affect the ultimate sentence; requires reasonableness of § 3553(a) fallback explanation)
- United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (presumption of collateral consequences for convictions; burden for showing collateral consequences when challenging an expired sentence)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (mootness doctrine: case is moot when issues are no longer live or parties lack a legally cognizable interest)
- United States v. Orrega, 363 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir. 2004) (deportation after custody does not necessarily moot an appeal as to supervised release; reentry likelihood can keep controversy live)