United States v. Oscar Ceron
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24069
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ramos Ceron pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation.
- District court applied a 16-level crime of violence enhancement based on a Florida aggravated battery conviction (Fla. Stat. § 784.045(1)(a)(1)).
- Charging document for Florida conviction described aggravated battery involving intentional touching causing great bodily harm.
- Ramos Ceron objected to the enhancement; a prior judge in a different case had denied the enhancement in that context.
- District court overruled the objection, adopted the PSR, and sentenced 63 months; stated absence of the enhancement would not change the sentence.
- Appeal argues the enhancement is improper, collateral estoppel should apply, and any error is not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel should preclude the enhancement. | Ramos Ceron argues prior ruling forecloses the enhancement. | Ramos Ceron contends prior adjudication determined not to apply the enhancement. | Not reversible plain error; record insufficient to establish estoppel. |
| Whether Florida aggravated battery qualifies as a crime of violence under §2L1.2. | Cerón contends statute does not necessarily involve use of force. | Government argues the element combination requires use of force. | Florida aggravated battery qualifies under use of force after modified/categorical approach. |
| Whether the district court’s error, if any, was plain error given the record and standard of review. | Record insufficient to prove estoppel; error not clear on record. | Even if error, evidence supports final sentence. | No plain error; affirmed district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mollier, 853 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1988) (collateral estoppel in criminal cases discussed; not essential here)
- Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) (plain error review framework)
- United States v. Duarte-Aldana, 364 F. App’x 360 (9th Cir. 2010) (collateral estoppel argument rejected; enhancement not actually litigated)
- United States v. Rosquete, 199 F. App’x 728 (11th Cir. 2005) (no final judgment on applicability of enhancement)
- United States v. Grey, No. 13-12333, slip op. (11th Cir. Mar. 12, 2014) (11th Cir. 2014) (same principle; unpublished/slip opinion)
- United States v. Dominguez, 479 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2007) (modified categorical approach; elements-based analysis)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (divisible statute requires modified categorical approach)
- Franco-Casasola v. Holder, 2014 WL 5454842 (5th Cir. 2014) (discussion of divisible statutes and elements)
- Sanchez-Espinal, 762 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2014) (application of modified categorical approach with multiple disjunctive elements)
- Elizondo-Hernandez, 755 F.3d 779 (5th Cir. 2014) ( Shepard-based element analysis)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (avoidance of purely hypothetical applications of statutes)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (touching not inherently use of force)
- Basulto-Reina, 421 F. App’x 349 (5th Cir. 2011) (elements approach to force in battery)