United States v. Martin Guillen-Cruz, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6161

Background

Martin Guillen‑Cruz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and received a PSR that added an 8‑level enhancement under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) based on a prior conviction under 22 U.S.C. § 2778 for exporting defense articles without a license.
The PSR treated the § 2778 conviction as an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), producing an offense level of 14 (reduced by the district court to 13) and a Guidelines range of 18–24 months; the court imposed 24 months.
On appeal (plain‑error review because no objection was raised below), Guillen‑Cruz argued the § 2778 conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43).
The Government maintained the § 2778 conviction qualified under (C) (illicit trafficking in firearms, destructive devices, or explosive materials) or alternatively under (E)(ii) as an offense “described in” 18 U.S.C. § 924(b).
The Fifth Circuit concluded that exporting rifle magazines (the conduct underlying Guillen‑Cruz’s § 2778 conviction) does not fit the statutory definitions of firearm, destructive device, or ammunition used in § 921/§ 924 and therefore is not an aggravated felony under either § 1101(a)(43)(C) or (E)(ii).
Because the enhancement was a clear or obvious error that affected Guillen‑Cruz’s substantial rights (lowered Guidelines range by eight months) and vacatur was warranted in the exercise of discretion, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Government (Plaintiff) Argument	Guillen‑Cruz (Defendant) Argument	Held
Whether a § 2778 conviction for exporting rifle magazines is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(C) (illicit trafficking in firearms/destructive devices/explosives)	§ 2778 conviction qualifies because it involves items on the Munitions List that amount to illicit trafficking in firearms/destructive devices/explosives	Exporting rifle magazines is not trafficking in “firearms,” “destructive devices,” or “explosive materials” as those terms are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921/§ 841	Held: No—the statutory definitions do not encompass rifle magazines; enhancement was erroneous
Whether the § 2778 conviction is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii) by relating to an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 924(b)	Magazines constitute “ammunition” (or otherwise fall within § 924(b)), so § 2778 conviction proves a § 924(b) offense	Magazines are neither “firearms” nor “ammunition” under § 921 definitions; proof of § 2778 does not necessarily prove a § 924(b) violation	Held: No—magazines are not ammunition or firearms under § 921(a), so § 2778 conviction does not necessarily prove a § 924(b) offense
Standard of review and plain‑error applicability	Enhancement was properly applied; no controlling precedent showing error	Enhancement was clear or obvious error and review is for plain error because no objection was made below	Held: Plain‑error review applies; the error was clear or obvious on the statutory text and precedent interpreting the definitional terms
Whether the error affected substantial rights and warrants correction in the court’s discretion	The sentencing disparity and defendant’s criminal history do not require vacatur; alternative facts could justify the enhancement	The enhancement increased the Guidelines range from 10–16 to 18–24 months; reasonable probability of a different sentence absent error; vacatur appropriate	Held: The error affected substantial rights (reasonable probability of shorter sentence) and, considering degree of error and record, the court exercised discretion to vacate and remand

Key Cases Cited

Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (categorical/modified categorical approach framework)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (divisibility and application of categorical approach)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (effect on substantial rights: reasonable probability of different outcome)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error review standard)
United States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585 (de novo review of Guidelines interpretation)
United States v. Escalante‑Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (plain‑error prongs in Fifth Circuit)
United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534 (explaining that magazines are not ammunition; primer on magazines)
United States v. Maturin, 488 F.3d 657 (recognizing clear statutory overbreadth can show plain error)