United States v. Roberto Garza-Mendez
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23100
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Roberto Garza‑Mendez, a Mexican citizen, was convicted in Georgia (2007) of family‑violence battery and sentenced on the judgment form to "12 months" confinement, credited with 30 hours served and remainder placed on probation; he was deported in 2011.
- He illegally reentered the U.S. in February 2011, was arrested again, and indicted for unlawful reentry in March 2012; pleaded guilty to the federal charge and was sentenced in June 2012.
- Before the federal sentencing, a different Gwinnett County judge (in April 2012) issued a clarification stating the 2007 sentence was twelve months of probation with the first 30 hours in custody (not 12 months incarceration).
- The federal Probation Office applied an 8‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) based on the prior family‑violence battery being an "aggravated felony" (a crime of violence with a term of imprisonment ≥ 1 year).
- At federal sentencing the district court: (1) rejected the state court clarification, holding the original 2007 judgment imposed a 12‑month term of imprisonment for federal‑law purposes and applied the 8‑level enhancement; (2) denied a downward departure/variance for cultural assimilation; and (3) imposed 3 years supervised release with a special condition requiring the defendant to notify probation of his address in Mexico within 10 days of deportation.
Issues
| Issue | Garza‑Mendez's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2007 family‑violence battery is an "aggravated felony" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) because the sentence was not a term of imprisonment ≥ 1 year | The April 2012 state clarification shows the 2007 sentence was 12 months probation (with 30 hours custody), not 12 months incarceration, so it is not an aggravated felony | The original 2007 judgment unambiguously imposed "12 months" confinement; federal law treats the term actually imposed (including suspended portions) as a term of imprisonment, so the enhancement applies | Affirmed: the 2007 sentence qualifies as a term of imprisonment of at least one year for purposes of the § 2L1.2 enhancement |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a downward departure/variance for cultural assimilation under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.8 | Garza‑Mendez argued he was brought to the U.S. as a child, attended school, and is culturally assimilated — warranting a departure/variance | Court emphasized defendant's extensive and recurring criminal history before and after deportation, and found he did not meet the narrow assimilation criteria | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying departure/variance |
| Whether it was improper to impose an extraterritorial supervised‑release reporting requirement (notify probation of address in Mexico within 10 days) | Reporting from Mexico is beyond the court’s jurisdiction and unreasonable given deportation logistics | Condition reasonably relates to § 3553(a) goals (deterrence, protection, monitoring to ensure defendant remains abroad) and is permitted under the Guidelines | Affirmed: special condition reasonable and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Guzman‑Bera, 216 F.3d 1019 (11th Cir. 2000) (defines aggravated‑felony inquiry by sentence actually imposed)
- United States v. Christopher, 239 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2001) (recognizing misdemeanor crime of violence can qualify for aggravated‑felony enhancement under guidelines)
- United States v. Aguilar‑Ortiz, 450 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2006) (federal courts review application of Sentencing Guidelines de novo and look to judgment of conviction)
- United States v. Ayala‑Gomez, 255 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2001) (federal understandings govern the meaning of "term of imprisonment," including suspended portions)
- United States v. Guzman, 558 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2009) (upholding extraterritorial reporting to verify defendant remains outside U.S. and to further deterrence/protection objectives)