United States v. Nilson Madrid-Martinez
695 F. App'x 743
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nilson Madrid-Martinez, a Honduran national, was detained after ICE officers, with consent to enter a Dallas residence, found five firearms and he admitted (post-Miranda) that they were his and that he was unlawfully in the U.S. after prior deportation.
- Charged with three counts including being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1)); he moved to suppress the evidence but the motion was denied.
- Madrid pleaded guilty unconditionally to the firearm-possession count; remaining charges were dropped; he did not preserve a conditional plea or express intent to appeal the suppression ruling.
- The PSR treated Madrid as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) based on prior Texas burglary convictions (Tex. Penal Code § 30.02), yielding a base offense level that produced a 180-month sentence.
- Madrid objected that Texas burglary is broader than generic burglary (and allegedly indivisible), that Shepard documents were lacking, and that Alleyne barred judicial factfinding that triggers career-offender enhancements.
- The district court overruled objections and sentenced him as an armed career criminal; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to appeal suppression after unconditional plea | Madrid argued suppression denial was erroneous | Government: unconditional guilty plea waived nonjurisdictional pre-plea challenges | Waiver applies; unconditional plea forfeits suppression challenge on appeal |
| Whether Texas burglary (§ 30.02(a)) is a categorical match to generic burglary | Madrid: § 30.02 is broader and indivisible, so prior convictions can't categorically qualify | Government: § 30.02(a)(1) qualifies; statute is divisible; modified categorical approach applies | § 30.02(a) is divisible; prior convictions can qualify as generic burglary under precedent |
| Sufficiency of record / Shepard documents for career-offender/ACCA enhancement | Madrid: sentencing record lacked appropriate documents to support predicate offenses per Shepherd | Government: state-conviction documents show guilty pleas to entry with intent to commit theft (§ 30.02(a)(1)) | Record contained adequate documents; enhancement supported |
| Alleyne challenge to judicial factfinding for enhancement | Madrid: Alleyne forbids judge from finding facts that trigger application of § 4B1.2 / § 994(h) | Government: Alleyne doesn't disturb precedent allowing such determinations | Alleyne contention foreclosed by binding Fifth Circuit precedent (Tuma); no error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232 (5th Cir.) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional pre-plea challenges)
- United States v. Wise, 179 F.3d 184 (5th Cir.) (same principle on plea waiver)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for procedural and substantive sentencing review)
- United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir.) (preservation and reasonableness review framework)
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for Guidelines application)
- United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172 (5th Cir.) (Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1) qualifies as generic burglary; statute divisible)
- United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667 (5th Cir.) (affirming Conde-Castaneda post-Mathis)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (divisibility/modified categorical approach framework)
- United States v. Tuma, 738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir.) (Alleyne argument foreclosed regarding judicial factfinding for enhancements)
- Shepherd v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits on documents usable to identify facts supporting predicate offenses)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by jury)