United States v. Pedro Payano
930 F.3d 186
3rd Cir.2019Background
- Payano, a Dominican national, was convicted in 1998 in New York of first-degree possession of a controlled substance; he was removed in 2001 and illegally reentered the U.S. in 2012. In 2017 police found ~1 kg cocaine in his vehicle; drug charge was later dismissed after suppression of the search.
- Payano pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; his prior NY conviction qualified as a federal felony but not an "aggravated felony," so the correct statutory maximum was 10 years under § 1326(b)(1).
- The PSR correctly computed the Guidelines range (24–30 months) and listed a 10-year statutory maximum but mistakenly cited § 1326(b)(2) (20-year max).
- The Government repeatedly argued at sentencing that Payano had an aggravated-felony prior and asked the court to "correct" the PSR to reflect a 20-year maximum; the District Court ordered that change with defense assent.
- The District Court imposed a 4-year sentence (above the Guidelines range but below both the 10- and 20-year maxima). Payano appealed, arguing plain error from the court’s mistaken belief about the statutory maximum.
Issues
| Issue | Payano’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court plainly erred by treating the statutory maximum as 20 yrs instead of 10 yrs | The court’s mistaken statutory-max was plain error that affected substantial rights and requires resentencing (relying on Molina‑Martinez analogy) | Conceded plain‑error standard applies; argued the statutory‑max played no role in sentencing and no presumption of prejudice applies | Error was plain and affected substantial rights on this record; resentencing required |
| Whether a statutory‑range error warrants a presumption of prejudice like a Guidelines‑range error | Urged extension of Molina‑Martinez presumption to statutory‑range errors, especially under § 1326’s tiered scheme | Argued statutory max unlike Guidelines does not anchor sentencing and thus no presumption should apply | Court declined to extend Molina‑Martinez; no presumption of prejudice for statutory‑range errors |
| Whether Payano showed actual prejudice (reasonable probability of a different sentence) | The pervasive government argument and the court’s acceptance of the 20‑yr citation created a reasonable probability the sentence was influenced | Argued upward variance was supported by permissible considerations (dismissed drug count, post‑arrest admissions) and statutory max was not material | Court found actual prejudice given the record (government’s repeated misstatements and court’s amendment of PSR) |
| Whether correction is warranted under Olano’s fourth prong (fairness, integrity, public reputation) | Relief necessary because uncorrected error would harm integrity of proceedings | Gov’t conceded that if substantial rights affected, remand is appropriate | Court exercised discretion to vacate sentence and remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (presumption of prejudice for incorrect Guidelines range)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error test elements)
- Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (reasonable‑probability prejudice standard on plea‑related errors)
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (considerations for correcting forfeited errors under Rule 52(b))
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (role of Guidelines as sentencing "starting point")
- Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (Guidelines’ role in promoting uniformity and proportionality)