United States v. Onan Aleman-Rodriguez
706 F. App'x 199
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Onan Aleman‑Rodriguez, a Honduran national, illegally reentered the U.S. in 2015 after prior deportations and a 2010 conviction for illegal reentry with supervised release. He has used multiple aliases and has a lengthy criminal history.
- In 2001 he pled guilty in Virginia to statutory burglary. The Government treated that conviction as a predicate "crime of violence" for sentencing under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), triggering a 12‑point enhancement.
- At sentencing for the 2015 illegal reentry, the district court applied the 12‑point enhancement, producing a Guidelines range of 30–37 months. Aleman objected, arguing the Virginia burglary statute is indivisible and thus broader than generic burglary.
- The district court overruled the objection, imposed 36 months for reentry (plus 4 months for supervised‑release violation), and stated it would impose the same sentence even if the Guidelines calculation were incorrect.
- After briefing, this Court held in Reyes‑Ochoa that Virginia statutory burglary is not a crime of violence, so the enhancement here was erroneous. The panel nevertheless considered whether the error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aleman’s 2001 Virginia statutory burglary conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" for a 12‑point U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 enhancement | Virginia burglary is indivisible and broader than generic burglary, so it cannot serve as a predicate crime of violence | The prior burglary conviction is a crime of violence and supports the 12‑point enhancement | The conviction does not qualify (per Reyes‑Ochoa), so the enhancement was erroneous, but the error was harmless because the district court would have imposed the same sentence anyway |
| Whether the sentencing error was harmless | Aleman argued the enhancement was improper and required resentencing | Government argued harmlessness because the district court expressly said it would impose the same sentence even without the enhancement | Harmless error: court affirmed because the district judge stated it would impose the same sentence under the §3553(a) factors regardless of the Guidelines calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets bifurcated procedural and substantive reasonableness review for sentences)
- United States v. Gutierrez‑Hernandez, 581 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of Guidelines interpretation; clear‑error for factual findings)
- United States v. Reyes‑Ochoa, 861 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2017) (Virginia statutory burglary is not a crime of violence)
- United States v. Guzman‑Rendon, 864 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2017) (harmless‑error framework when Guidelines range is recalculated)
- United States v. Ibarra‑Luna, 628 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2010) (government can show harmlessness by proving the court would have imposed the same sentence for the same reasons)
- United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2008) (example where district court’s statement that it would impose the same sentence supports harmlessness)