United States v. Sanchez
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 550
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Sanchez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction.
- PSR calculated a total offense level of 21 and criminal history II, producing a guideline range of 41–51 months.
- PSR applied a 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on Sanchez's 1995 Texas conviction for attempted sexual assault of a child.
- Sanchez opposed the enhancement, arguing Texas attempt law is broader than the generic substantial-step standard and that age-of-consent issues differ from the federal definition.
- District court adopted the PSR, denied many objections, and sentenced Sanchez to 48 months, within the guidelines.
- Sanchez pursued a below-guidelines sentence but the court imposed a mid-range sentence after considering arguments and evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) applies a crime-of-violence enhancement | Sanchez contends the Texas conviction does not satisfy the enumerated offense definition. | The Government contends the Texas offense is a crime of violence under the guideline. | Yes; the Texas conviction can qualify as a crime of violence under the guideline. |
| Whether Sanchez's Texas attempted sexual assault of a child qualifies as a crime of violence under the guidelines | Texas attempt may not map to the generic substantial-step standard; Texas language could sweep broader. | Texas attempted sexual assault of a child is a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). | Yes; it falls within the crime-of-violence definition for purposes of the enhancement. |
| Whether the district court adequately explained the sentencing decision | Rita and Mondragon-Santiago/Tisdale require more explicit reasoning when nonfrivolous arguments are presented. | The court considered arguments and explained why a mid-guideline sentence was appropriate. | District court explanation was adequate. |
| Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under § 3553(a) | The sentence overemphasizes deterrence and respect for law, underweighting personal factors and rehabilitation. | A within-guidelines sentence can be reasonable; the court weighed § 3553(a) factors appropriately. | Not substantively unreasonable; the within-guidelines sentence is affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez-Galvan, 632 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2011) (clarified substantial-step and crime-of-violence definitions)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (Supreme Court 2007) (realistic probability standard for state statutes in § 2L1.2 context)
- Mandujano, 499 F.2d 370 (5th Cir. 1974) (substantial-step requires act strongly corroborative of criminal intent and more than mere preparation)
- Oviedo, 525 F.2d 881 (5th Cir. 1976) (complements Mandujano on substantial-step interpretation)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court 2007) (requires only brief but legally sufficient explanation when guideline sentence is imposed)
- Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (procedural error for failure to explain when nonfrivolous arguments were raised)
- Tisdale, 264 Fed.Appx. 403 (5th Cir. 2008) (another instance of sentencing explanation requirement)
- Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2010) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Texas attempt statute; discussed scope relative to substantial-step test)