United States v. Vasquez-Gutierrez
478 F. App'x 336
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Vasquez-Gutierrez pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- District court applied a 20-year maximum under § 1326(b)(2) due to an aggravated-felony prior and calculated a guidelines range of 41–51 months, sentencing him to 41 months.
- In 1999 Vasquez-Gutierrez was charged in Iowa with sexual abuse in the third degree and pled guilty to a lesser offense (Iowa conviction) with a two-year suspended sentence in 2000.
- ICE issued a removal order in 2000 based in part on the Iowa conviction; Vasquez-Gutierrez was removed in 2000, reentered illegally, and was removed again in 2003.
- In 2010 he was arrested for illegal reentry following removal after a felony conviction; he challenged the indictment arguing the 2000 removal order was invalid because the Iowa conviction did not qualify as an aggravated felony.
- The district court denied the motion, Vasquez-Gutierrez pled guilty, and the court sentenced him at the bottom of the guidelines range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Iowa conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony for §1326(b)(2). | Vasquez-Gutierrez argued the Iowa conviction is not a crime of violence or sexual abuse of a minor. | The government contends the Iowa conviction falls within aggravated felony categories for sentencing. | Harmless error; no impact on substantial rights; sentence remains valid. |
| If not an aggravated felony, whether §1326(b)(1) applies with a 10-year maximum. | Vasquez-Gutierrez contends the 10-year maximum should cap the sentence if there is no aggravated felony. | The government maintains §1326(b)(1) applies because the reentry followed removal after a felony conviction. | §1326(b)(1) applies; 10-year maximum; the sentence stayed within this limit. |
| Whether remand is appropriate to determine a different offense-based enhancement (crime of violence, etc.). | Vasquez-Gutierrez seeks remand to reclassify the prior conviction under federal offense definitions. | The government argues remand is unnecessary given the existing lawful sentence. | Remand not required; the sentence was within the statutory maximum even if the prior conviction were not an aggravated felony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quiroga, 554 F.3d 1150 (8th Cir. 2009) (concerning classification of an Iowa conviction for aggravated felony purposes)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. _ (2010) (definition of 'felony' and sentencing implications under federal law)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. _ (2010) (crime-of-violence and related definitional guidance)
- Stanko, 491 F.3d 408 (8th Cir. 2007) (waiver and arguments not meaningfully presented on appeal)
- Garcia-Guizar, 234 F.3d 483 (9th Cir. 2000) (Apprendi-type reasoning for sentence caps when maximum exceeds one year)
- Limley, 510 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2007) (guilty plea generally waives non-jurisdictional defects)
- Perez-Ponce, 62 F.3d 1120 (8th Cir. 1995) (collateral attack standards on removal orders)