United States v. Rudy Estrada, 777 F.3d 1318

Rudy Estrada, a Mexican national, pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following a prior conviction under Fla. Stat. § 790.19 (throwing a deadly missile).
PSR applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for a prior "crime of violence," yielding total offense level 21 and Guidelines range 77–96 months; court varied and sentenced to 48 months.
Estrada objected that § 790.19 is not categorically a "crime of violence" because some prongs target property rather than the person; he conceded an 8-level aggravated-felony enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) would apply.
After sentencing, this Court decided United States v. Estrella, holding § 790.19 is divisible but not categorically a crime of violence; the modified categorical inquiry depends on which mental state ("wantonly" vs. "maliciously") supported the conviction.
Only the charging information (Shepard-approved document) here charged "wantonly or maliciously"; because that disjunctive charging document does not identify which mental state the conviction rested on, the 16-level enhancement cannot be sustained.
Parties agreed (and defendant previously requested) that an 8-level aggravated-felony enhancement applies; the Court remanded to vacate the 16-level enhancement, impose the 8-level enhancement, and resentence (new Guidelines range 33–41 months), with § 3553(a) factors to be considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior Fla. § 790.19 conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)	Govt originally argued it did; later conceded Estrella controls and the 16‑level enhancement was erroneous.	Estrada argued § 790.19 is not categorically a crime of violence; only an 8‑level aggravated‑felony enhancement applies.	The court held the 16‑level enhancement was improperly applied because the Shepard‑approved record did not resolve whether conviction was on the "wantonly" (qualifying) or "maliciously" (non‑qualifying) mental state.
Whether remand should direct imposition of an 8‑level aggravated‑felony enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C)	Govt: limited remand should require vacatur of the 16‑level enhancement and imposition of the agreed 8‑level enhancement.	Estrada: requested the Court not mandate imposition on remand but previously stipulated at sentencing that the 8‑level enhancement applied.	The court ordered vacatur of the 16‑level enhancement, directed imposition of the 8‑level aggravated‑felony enhancement, and remanded for resentencing (range 33–41 months), with § 3553(a) considerations.

United States v. Estrella, 758 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2014) (§ 790.19 divisible; modified categorical test required; prior conviction not qualifying where Shepard docs did not show mens rea)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (divisibility analysis and limits on using modified categorical approach)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (specifies the limited documents courts may consult in the modified categorical inquiry)
United States v. Martinez, 606 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2010) (circuit court authority to fashion remand mandates under 28 U.S.C. § 2106)