United States v. Rosales-Miranda
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12984
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Manuel Rosales-Miranda pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and 1326(b)(2).
- The PSR applied a 16-level U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement (crime-of-violence) based on two Virginia "Assault and Battery on a Family Member" convictions, treating them as felonies.
- That enhancement raised his offense level and—combined with his criminal history—produced an advisory Guidelines range of 70–87 months; with acceptance points the PSR recommended 70 months; defendant sought a 30‑month sentence.
- At sentencing the district court accepted the PSR calculation but expressed policy-based disagreements with § 2L1.2 (double counting and lack of empirical basis) and imposed a downward-variant sentence of 36 months.
- On appeal both parties agreed the 16-level enhancement application was erroneous because the Virginia convictions were misdemeanors; the issue became whether plain‑error relief was warranted given forfeiture of objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement was applied in error and was plain | Government: enhancement was error (parties agree) | Rosales-Miranda: enhancement was erroneous because VA convictions are misdemeanors | Error was clear/obvious and conceded by parties |
| Whether the error affected substantial rights (third prong of plain‑error) | Government: because the 36‑month sentence falls within the correct Guidelines range, no prejudice shown | Rosales-Miranda: erroneous range more than doubled the Guidelines baseline; reasonable probability sentence would differ on resentencing | Court: prejudice shown—reasonable probability sentence would change; third prong satisfied |
| Whether the error seriously affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation (fourth prong) | Government: district court disregarded the Guidelines and based sentence on § 3553(a), so correcting range unlikely to change result | Rosales-Miranda: PSR showed a patent calculation error that inflated the baseline; district court relied on policy discounts of that baseline, so a correct baseline likely yields a significantly lower sentence | Court: fourth prong satisfied; sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines are the starting point and benchmark for sentencing)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (sentencing courts must consider § 3553(a) after calculating Guidelines)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review for forfeited objections)
- Osuna v. United States, 189 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 1999) (overlapping Guidelines ranges do not render an error harmless absent judge's reasoning)
- Urbanek v. United States, 930 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1991) (district court must state whether sentence would be the same without enhancement)
- Hoskins v. United States, 654 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding that an actual sentence within the correct Guidelines range can undercut a showing of prejudice in some cases)
- Langford v. United States, 516 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (incorrect Guidelines starting point rarely shown harmless; judge’s reasoning controls)
- Cordery v. United States, 656 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2011) (a ~10% possible reduction can satisfy the fourth prong as a miscarriage of justice)