United States v. Ruben Paz-Giron, 833 F.3d 836

Paz-Giron, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without authorization in the 1980s and was removed in 2002.
After return, he was convicted in 2013 of identity theft that qualified as an aggravated felony (loss > $10,000); he had multiple prior DUI convictions.
A federal grand jury later indicted him under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for being unlawfully present after removal; he pleaded guilty.
The probation office applied an 8-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) (for unlawfully remaining after a conviction for an aggravated felony) and calculated a Guidelines range of 24–30 months.
At sentencing the court corrected a PSR error about the statutory maximum (2 years, not 20), but still applied the 8-level enhancement and imposed a 24-month sentence (the statutory maximum).
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held the enhancement was inapplicable because Paz-Giron was removed before his aggravated-felony conviction; vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C)'s 8-level increase applies when the defendant was removed before the aggravated-felony conviction	Paz-Giron: not applicable because removal preceded the aggravated-felony conviction; he did not "unlawfully remain" after a removal order issued after that conviction	Government: the commentary is illustrative or alternatively refers to any prior conviction (so removal after any conviction could trigger the enhancement if aggravated-felony conviction occurred later)	The enhancement does not apply; the Guideline and its commentary require the removal order to be issued after the relevant (aggravated-felony) conviction; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing

Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (2013) (plain-error review framework)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Guidelines commentary is authoritative unless inconsistent with statute or Constitution)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (incorrect Guidelines range can satisfy prejudice prong in plain-error review)
United States v. Gonzalez, 112 F.3d 1325 (7th Cir. 1997) (§2L1.2 keyed to seriousness of prior crimes)
United States v. Adams, 746 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2014) (presumption that an incorrect Guidelines range influenced the sentence)
United States v. Martinez-Garcia, 268 F.3d 460 (7th Cir. 2001) (interpreting guideline to require deportation subsequent to conviction)
United States v. Nevares-Bustamante, 669 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2012) (same interpretation)
United States v. Sanchez-Mota, 319 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (rejecting government’s broader reading)