United States v. Trino Medina-Campo
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7802
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Medina-Campo was deported in 2005 after an aggravated felony conviction for heroin trafficking in Oregon.
- He reentered the United States and was later arrested in Maryland in 2011 for driving under the influence.
- A grand jury charged him with illegal entry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and enhanced penalties under § 1326(b)(2).
- He pleaded guilty and received a 50-month prison sentence in 2012, with the sentence informed by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
- The district court applied a 16-level enhancement under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on a prior drug-trafficking felony conviction in Oregon.
- Medina-Campo challenged whether the Oregon conviction qualifies as a drug trafficking offense and whether the modified categorical approach was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon unlawful delivery qualifies as a drug trafficking offense under 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) | Medina-Campo argues delivery is not a drug trafficking offense categorically. | Government asserts solicitation/related acts are encompassed within trafficking offenses, warranting the enhancement. | Solicitation is encompassed; Oregon delivery is a drug trafficking offense for 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). |
| Whether the modified categorical approach applies to determine the underlying conviction | Medina-Campo contends Shepard documents are insufficient to prove the specific underlying act. | Government bears burden to prove under the modified categorical approach by the preponderance of the evidence. | Modified categorical approach not required to exclude solicitation; approach supports the enhancement. |
| Whether the district court properly computed the Guidelines range and sentenced reasonably | Medina-Campo argues a lower range would result if a four-level or other adjustment were used. | Government maintains the calculated range with the 16-level enhancement is correct and reasonable. | Court's enhanced range is proper; sentence is reasonable and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Peterson, 629 F.3d 432 (4th Cir. 2011) (cites categorical approach for prior convictions under 2L1.2)
- United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2012) (discusses modified categorical approach and solicitation/conspiracy/attempt)
- United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558 (4th Cir. 2010) (assists in categorization of offenses under 2L1.2)
- United States v. Shumate, 329 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2003) (solicitation and drug offenses within career-offender context)
- United States v. Cornelio-Pena, 435 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2006) (solicitation similar to conspiracy/attempt for Application Note 5)
- United States v. Mendez-Casarez, 624 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2010) (solicitation treated similarly to conspiracy for 2L1.2 enhancement)
- United States v. Dolt, 27 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 1994) (some circuits diverge on solicitation as a predicate offense)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (Supreme Court 1990) (definition of generic, contemporary meaning in statutory interpretation)
- Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (Supreme Court 1995) (lenity surviving as a potential consideration in interpretation)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness review of sentences)