F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
FEB 24 1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 97-3021
CARMEN MORENO BARBA,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(D.C. No. 96-10028-3)
Submitted on the briefs:
Jackie N. Williams, United States Attorney, David M. Lind, Assistant United
States Attorney, Wichita, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roger L. Falk of Law Office of Roger L. Falk, P.A., Wichita, Kansas, for
Defendant-Appellant.
Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Carmen Barba appeals her sentence contending the district court
improperly calculated her base offense level in sentencing her to sixty months’
imprisonment followed by a three-year period of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm. 1
Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The presentence report concluded that
defendant qualified as a career offender because of two prior felony convictions
in California each involving possession for sale of a controlled substance.
Defendant objected to the district court’s use of these two state convictions,
contending that, because she was civilly committed to a narcotic treatment
program as a result of those convictions, they should not have been counted for
purposes of establishing career offender status. The district court overruled
defendant’s objections and imposed the sentence described above.
The district court’s conclusion that defendant qualifies as a career offender
is a legal question accorded de novo review. United States v. Mitchell, 113 F.3d
1528, 1532 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 66 U.S.L.W. 3456 (U.S. Jan.12, 1998)
1
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case
is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
(No. 97-6910). We apply the 1996 version of the Guidelines Manual because that
version was in effect on January 27, 1997, the date of defendant’s sentencing.
See United States v. Moudy, 132 F.3d 618, 620 n.1 (10th Cir. 1998).
Under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1:
A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at
least eighteen years old at the time of the instant offense, (2) the
instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of
violence or a controlled substance offense, and (3) the defendant has
at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a
controlled substance offense. . . . A career offender’s criminal
history category in every case shall be Category VI.
The definition section applicable to 4B1.1 states:
“Prior felony conviction” means a prior adult federal or state
conviction for an offense punishable by death or imprisonment for a
term exceeding one year, regardless of whether such offense is
specifically designated as a felony and regardless of the actual
sentence imposed.
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, Note 3 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Ricks, 5
F.3d 48, 49 (3d Cir. 1993)(affirming a career offender enhancement even where
actual sentence for prior burglary was less than one year).
As a result of her controlled substance convictions in California, defendant
was civilly committed to a narcotics treatment program provided for by California
statute. She argues that this commitment should prohibit consideration of the
convictions for purposes of § 4B1.1. We disagree.
-3-
The statute under which defendant was civilly committed is part of the
California Welfare and Institutions Code. It provides in pertinent part:
Upon conviction of a defendant for any crime in any superior
court, or following revocation of probation previously granted, and
upon imposition of sentence, if it appears to the judge that the
defendant may be addicted or by reason of repeated use of narcotics
may be in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics the
judge shall suspend the execution of the sentence and order the
district attorney to file a petition for commitment of the defendant to
the Director of Corrections for confinement in the narcotic detention,
treatment, and rehabilitation facility unless, in the opinion of the
judge, the defendant’s record and probation report indicate such a
pattern of criminality that he or she does not constitute a fit subject
for commitment under this section.
Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 3051. In Padilla v. Ackerman, 460 F.2d 477, 477-78
(9th Cir. 1972), the Ninth Circuit explained the application of this statute.
The State of California has by statute instituted an elaborate
program for the medical treatment of defendants convicted of crime
and who are “addicted or by reason of repeated use of narcotics may
be in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics. . . .”
Immediately upon the conviction of a defendant who appears to have
a narcotics problem, the trial court is required to “adjourn the
proceedings or suspend imposition or execution of the sentence and
order the district attorney to file a petition for commitment of the
defendant to the Director of Corrections for confinement in the
narcotic detention, treatment and rehabilitation facility. . . .
(citation omitted; emphasis added). California courts have held that commitment
under this statute does not foreclose consideration of the underlying prior
conviction for sentencing purposes on a later offense. See People v. Rodriguez,
52 Cal. Rptr. 643 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1966).
-4-
Defendant reads this California statute with 28 U.S.C. § 2904 which
provides:
The determination of narcotic addiction and the subsequent
civil commitment under this chapter shall not be deemed a criminal
conviction. The results of any tests or procedures conducted by the
Surgeon General or the supervisory aftercare authority to determine
narcotic addiction may only be used in a further proceeding under
this chapter. They shall not be used against the examined individual
in any criminal proceeding except that the fact that he is a narcotic
addict may be elicited on his cross-examination as bearing on his
credibility as a witness.
Defendant concludes that, because she was civilly committed for narcotics
treatment in California, § 2904 prohibits the determination of addiction and
subsequent commitment from being counted as a criminal conviction. The district
court, however, did not enhance defendant’s sentence because of her status as an
addict or because of her subsequent commitment for treatment. Defendant was
treated as a career offender because she had been convicted of two prior
controlled substance felonies. Defendant loses sight of the fact that, before she
was civilly committed, she had been convicted of the two predicate offenses. In
sentencing defendant, the district court concluded that “[t]he fact that defendant’s
sentences of confinement resulting from [her] convictions were subsequently
suspended and defendant was civilly committed to a narcotics treatment program
does not preclude the counting of these convictions under the career offender
guideline.” R. Vol. I, tab 119 at 2. We agree with the district court.
-5-
In Dunn-Marin v. INS, 426 F.2d 894, 895 (9th Cir. 1970), the Ninth Circuit
reviewed an order of deportation imposed under § 241(a)(11) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1952. The court rejected petitioner’s argument that he was
not deportable because his commitment as a narcotic drug addict under § 3051 did
not constitute a prior conviction. The court observed that the argument was
foreclosed “by a long line of decisions by this court.” See id. at 895 (citing
cases).
Further, in an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
the Ninth Circuit held that the use of the petitioner’s prior conviction for
possession of narcotics to enhance subsequent punishment was not
unconstitutional despite the fact that the petitioner had been civilly committed
under § 3051. See Sanchez v. Nelson, 446 F.2d 849 (9th Cir. 1971). The court
observed that “[b]ecause his prior conviction was for possession of narcotics, not
for his status as an addict, the use of the prior conviction to enhance punishment
for a second narcotics offense does not transgress Robinson v. California.” Id. at
850.
We have recently held that a prior conviction sealed under Arkansas law
was not expunged for Sentencing Guidelines purposes, see United States v. Hines,
No. 96-3134, 1998 WL 13238, at *6 (10th Cir. Jan. 16, 1998), and that a prior
conviction set aside under the Federal Youth Corrections Act was properly
-6-
included in calculating the defendant’s criminal history category, see United
States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1479-80 (10th Cir. 1995). If those arguments
were not sufficiently persuasive to provide protection from a determination of
career offender status, defendant’s argument is even less compelling.
AFFIRMED.
-7-