United States v. Rodrigo Rodriguez-Negrete
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21000
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Rodriguez appeal of sentence for illegal reentry challenges the use of a state drug offense for a Guidelines enhancement.
- Rodriguez pleaded guilty to a lesser-included offense under S.C. law criminalizing purchase and possession of controlled substances.
- The district court applied a 12-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) based on a 2010 South Carolina conviction.
- The sentencing court relied on a South Carolina sentencing sheet indicating PWID/Dist. of Cocaine/LSD/other Narcotic drugs as the conviction.
- Defense objected that the state offense may not qualify as a drug trafficking offense; the court overruled and sentenced Rodriguez to 30 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state conviction qualifies as a drug trafficking offense | Rodriguez argues the statute is overbroad because it includes mere purchase. | The government contends the conviction involved distribution/possession with intent to distribute. | Yes; the conviction qualifies as drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2. |
| Whether the sentencing sheet establishes the offense of conviction under Shepard | Sheet is too vague to show a drug trafficking conviction. | Sheet clearly reflects possession with intent to distribute and distribution. | Yes; the sheet supports a drug trafficking offense under Shepard. |
| Whether the modified categorical approach applies given the statute | Only the statute is shown; cannot identify the offense via documents. | The statute is divisible and the documents show a qualifying offense. | Applicable; records show a qualifying offense. |
| Whether the 'purchase' aspect alone could justify the enhancement | Purchase of drugs does not necessarily constitute a drug trafficking offense. | The sentencing sheet reflects distribution-related conduct that does. | No; the record shows distribution/personal possession with intent to distribute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach to determine offenses)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (defines when state offenses match generic federal offenses)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits documents available for offense identification)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (realistic probability standard for statute scope)
- Henao-Melo, 591 F.3d 798 (5th Cir. 2009) (certainty required when determining conviction under Taylor)
- Lopez-Salas, 513 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2008) (limits reliance on indictments; emphasis on offense of conviction)
- Bethea, 603 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 2010) (recognizes sentencing sheet as Shepard document)