United States v. Munoz-Camarena
621 F.3d 967
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Munoz-Camarena appeals a 65-month sentence for attempted illegal re-entry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b).
- Supreme Court decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder issued during appeal, questioning district court’s Guidelines calculation.
- District court treated Munoz-Camarena’s three prior California simple-possession convictions as recidivist possession (an aggravated felony) for an eight-level enhancement.
- Carachuri holds second/subsequent simple-possession convictions do not qualify as aggravated felonies when the state conviction isn’t based on the fact of a prior conviction, affecting the proper enhancement.
- With the correct range under 2L1.2, the district court would have applied a four-level enhancement, potentially altering the sentence.
- Court remands to re-sentence because the initial Guidelines calculation was not kept in mind throughout the process and the variance explanation was insufficient to show it would be the same under the correct range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the eight-level enhancement was proper under 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). | Munoz-Camarena contends Carachuri requires a four-level, not eight-level, enhancement. | Huertas argues the district court correctly treated the prior simple-possession convictions as recidivist possession. | Remand for resentencing; eight-level enhancement error not supported by Carachuri. |
| Whether the incorrect Guidelines calculation was harmless. | Despite incorrect range, the district court would impose same sentence. | Error could have affected the sentence despite stated intent. | Not harmless; remand required. |
| Whether remand is necessary given potential alternative arguments under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). | Court should consider § 3553(a) factors on remand. | Proceedings would be duplicative if remanded for a correct calculation. | Remand for resentencing to address the correct range and proper explanation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2010) (harmless error review in incorrect guideline calculations)
- United States v. Coronado, 603 F.3d 706 (9th Cir. 2010) (remand when Guidelines calculation incorrect)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008 (en banc)) (requirement to start from correct Guidelines range; stay mindful throughout sentencing)
- Ali v. United States, 620 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2010) (harmless error analysis guidance in sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines starting point and objective of sentencing)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (start with Guidelines as benchmark; never depart without justification)
- United States v. Menyweather, 447 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2006) (application of harmless error analysis to sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Forrester, 616 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2010) (acknowledges factors for remand when Guidelines miscalculated)