United States v. Peguero-Martinez
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128921
| D. Mass. | 2010Background
- Defendant Wilkin Peguero-Martinez pled guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and the sentencing hearing occurred on November 9, 2010.
- Guideline base level for unlawful reentry is 8 under § 2L1.2(a).
- Government seeks a 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii) based on a prior Massachusetts youthful offender adjudication for violent assault.
- Defendant argues the Massachusetts youthful offender adjudication is not an adult conviction under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii) because he was 16 at the time.
- Application Note 1(A)(iv) bars the enhancement unless the youthful adjudication is classified as an adult conviction under the jurisdiction’s law.
- Court concludes the Massachusetts youthful offender adjudication is not an adult conviction and declines the 16-level enhancement, applying a base level of 8 and anadjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Massachusetts youthful offender adjudication counts as an adult conviction | Peguero-Martinez argues it is not an adult conviction under MA law | United States argues it should count as adult for § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) | No; not an adult conviction under the guidelines |
| Effect of Application Note 1(A)(iv) on pre-18 offenses | Note supports enhancement if classified as adult by state law | Note requires explicit adult classification by the jurisdiction | The adjudication is not classified as an adult conviction under Massachusetts law |
| Appropriate sentencing after rejecting enhancement | Guidelines would yield 0–6 months | Court imposes 20 months, with upward departure for severity and deterrence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pereira, 465 F.3d 515 (2nd Cir.2006) (whether youthful offender adjudications count as predicate offenses under 2L1.2)
- United States v. Jones, 415 F.3d 256 (2nd Cir.2005) (youthful offender adjudications examined for predicate purposes)
- United States v. Cuello, 357 F.3d 162 (2nd Cir.2004) (substance over labeling for youthful offender adjudications)
- In re Devison-Charles, 22 I. & N. Dec 1362 (BIA 2000) (BIA treated youthful offender adjudication in deportation context)
- Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381 (1980) (rule of lenity applied in interpretation of sentencing provisions)
- United States v. Luna-Diaz, 222 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2000) (lenity in sentencing interpretation; context of juvenile adjudications)
- Commonwealth v. Connor C., 738 N.E.2d 733 (Mass.2000) (Mass. youthful offender framework; two-track system)
- Commonwealth v. Clint C., 715 N.E.2d 1032 (Mass.1999) (Massachusetts juvenile adjudication framework)
- United States v. Torres, 541 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.2008) (distinguishes application of state youth classifications; not controlling here)