United States v. Rafael Marroquin
874 F.3d 851
5th Cir.2017Background
- Rafael Rios Marroquin pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 25 months, within a Guidelines range of 21–27 months based on Criminal History Category V.
- The PSR assigned Marroquin 11 criminal history points, including two 2-point scores (totaling 4 points) for two North Carolina drug convictions from 2005 and 2006 that the state court consolidated into a single judgment and imposed a single 6–8 month sentence.
- Marroquin argued on appeal that the consolidated North Carolina convictions should have produced only a single sentence score under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 and North Carolina’s consolidation statute, thereby reducing his criminal history category.
- The government defended the double scoring by relying on an unpublished Fifth Circuit decision and also argued another scoring issue favored Marroquin: a separate NC conviction that produced a suspended 6–8 month sentence with 30 months probation and a 30-day imprisonment condition (the PSR gave one point), but the judgment credited 119 days time-served which the government says could raise that to two points.
- The court found it was error to score the consolidated sentence twice, concluded the error was plain, and that removing the two improper points would lower Marroquin’s Guidelines range to 15–21 months.
- The court remanded for resentencing (vacating both the new-offense sentence and the supervised-release revocation sentence) so the district court can reconsider sentencing and address the government’s 119-day credit argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two consolidated NC convictions may be scored separately under the Guidelines | Consolidated convictions should count as one prior sentence and receive a single criminal history score | Double-scoring was permissible (relied on unpublished decision language) | Held: Consolidated sentence counts once; scoring twice was error |
| Whether Marroquin must show plain error on appeal (failure to object below) | Marroquin: error was plain and affected substantial rights | Govt: error not obvious given circuit precedent/unpublished language | Held: Error was plain under Puckett; obvious from NC statute, Guidelines, and Fourth Circuit precedent |
| Whether the scoring error prejudiced Marroquin’s sentence | Marroquin: removing two points lowers CHC from V to IV and Guidelines from 21–27 to 15–21 months, so prejudice is shown | Govt: other scoring issue (119-day credit) might offset and keep him in CHC V | Held: Presumed prejudice shown; government failed to prove the 119-day credit definitively preserves CHC V |
| Whether relief is warranted for plain error (integrity/fairness of proceeding) | Marroquin: the mis-scoring undermines sentencing integrity and affected sentence length | Govt: disparity small; other scoring may negate prejudice | Held: Vacatur and remand for full resentencing appropriate given error’s effect and nature |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (incorrect Guidelines range ordinarily demonstrates prejudice)
- Phillips v. Washington Legal Found., 524 U.S. 156 (1998) (deference to federal appellate court interpretations of state law within its circuit)
- United States v. Davis, 720 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2013) (treats consolidated North Carolina sentence as single prior sentence for Guidelines scoring)
- United States v. Fernandez, 743 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 2014) (discusses effect of time-served credit on criminal history scoring)
- United States v. Guillen-Cruz, 853 F.3d 768 (5th Cir. 2017) (plain-error relief where imposed sentence exceeded correct Guidelines range)
- United States v. Silva-De Hoyos, 702 F.3d 843 (5th Cir. 2012) (finding obvious error where statutory language was unambiguous)