United States v. Savillon-Matute
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3281
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Savillon-Matute pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following a Maryland aggravated felony conviction.
- PSR: base offense level 8, plus an 8-level enhancement for a prior Maryland second-degree assault (alleged aggravated felony).
- PSR calculation yielded a total offense level of 13 and a guideline range of 12–18 months; criminal history category I.
- Government argued for a 16-level enhancement (crime of violence under Diaz-Ibarra) based on the assault on a minor; proffered Maryland charging documents and Alford plea colloquy.
- Savillon-Matute argued under Shepard that Maryland second-degree assault is not categorically a crime of violence and that an Alford plea cannot support such consideration; district court found minor victim and use of force, proceeded with 8-level enhancement.
- District court sentenced him to 36 months, emphasizing deterrence and seriousness, and noted it would likely not have a shorter sentence even without the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court violated Shepard in applying the enhancement | Savillon-Matute argues improper use of external documents (charges/plea) via Shepard. | Savillon-Matute contends the court could not rely on outside materials to classify the prior as aggravated felony. | Harmless error; sentence affirmed. |
| Whether the 8-level enhancement was proper for a prior assault | Gov't argued second-degree assault is a crime of violence triggering 16-level enhancement. | Savillon-Matute contends it is not categorically a crime of violence and Shepard limits reliance on outside sources. | Assumed error; sentence within permissible range after harmlessness review. |
| Whether the 36-month sentence was reasonable under 3553(a) despite any guideline error | Gov't argues substantial deterrence warranted a longer sentence. | Savillon-Matute asserts any deviation from the guidelines would be unsupported by the record if error occurred. | Sentence found reasonable under deferential review. |
| Whether the court's use of judicial notice regarding minor victim affected validity | Gov't relied on case facts to justify enhancement. | Savillon-Matute challenges considering external facts from the victim's status. | Court's use of facts as to minor victim did not affect result; harmless in context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (limits use of certain sources in applying guidelines)
- Diaz-Ibarra v. United States, 522 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 2008) (sexual abuse of a minor qualifies as a crime of violence for enhancement)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness standard for sentencing)
- Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006) (assumed harmless error when guideline issue does not affect outcome)
- United States v. Alvarado Perez, 609 F.3d 609 (4th Cir. 2010) (harmlessness approach in reviewing sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2010) (Shepard limitations discussed in sentencing context)
- United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2010) (acknowledges harmless-error considerations in sentencing)
- Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423 (U.S. 2009) (procedural error harmlessness framework in sentencing)
- United States v. Alston, 611 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2010) (Shepard-related limitations discussed in 4th Cir.)
- Harcum v. United States, 587 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2009) (statutory maximum considerations under 1326)