FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 27, 2007
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 06-2065
v. (D. New Mexico)
(D.C. No. CR 05-2140 MCA)
PABLO PENA-PERETE,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and GORSUCH,
Circuit Judge.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Pablo Pena-Perete (the defendant) on October 20,
2005, in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, pled guilty to an
information charging him, “an alien,” with having been found in the State of New Mexico
after he had been previously deported from the United States because of a conviction of an
aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) 43 (A), “that being the Rape of a
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law
of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Child,” in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326 (a)(1) and (2) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(2).1 At that
time, the defendant was represented by appointed counsel. The Pre-Sentence Report (PSR)
set defendant’s base offense level at 8, and then increased his base offense level by 16
levels because of his prior conviction in January 2004 for an aggravated felony, a crime of
violence, in a Washington State Court, for Rape of a Child. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.2 Defendant
was then given a 3-level reduction of his adjusted offense level of 24, i.e., to level 21, for
acceptance of responsibility. With defendant’s criminal history category of III, the
resulting guideline range was imprisonment for 46 to 57 months. The PSR did not indicate
any grounds for a downward departure, nor did counsel ask the district court to consider a
downward departure from the PSR guideline range.
At sentencing, defendant’s counsel made no objection to the PSR, stating, inter alia,
that it “is absolutely factually correct,” and asked that the defendant be sentenced “at the
low end of the guidelines.” In accord with that request, the district court on February 23,
2006, sentenced defendant to imprisonment for 46 months. Before imposing its sentence of
46 months, the district court spoke as follows: “I do adopt then the pre-sentence report
factual findings and note that I do consult and have consulted the advisory sentencing
guidelines together with reviewing and considering the sentencing factors under Title 18,
1
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) 43(A) reads, inter alia, as follows: “The term ‘aggravated
felony’ means murder, rape or sexual abuse of a minor.”
2
On that conviction, defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months and
one day and 48 months community supervision. On April 8, 2004, that judgment and
sentence was amended to reflect 36 to 38 months community supervision. On July 13,
2004, he was deported to Mexico.
2
Section 3553, Part A, in determining the reasonableness of the sentence that I propose here
in this case.”
Defendant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal, stating therein that “I now have
documentation to show Proof for Consideration under 5H1.6. (Family Ties and
Responsibilities). Thank you.” Later, a notice of appeal was also filed by defendant’s
appointed counsel.
In this Court, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief. Anders v.
California, 367 U.S. 738 (1967). This court later determined that the Anders brief was
procedurally deficient and on December 20, 2006, entered an order directing counsel to
show cause why he should not be removed from the case. On January 19, 2007, this Court
removed defendant’s counsel from the appeal, struck the Anders brief previously filed,
appointed new counsel to represent the defendant, and set a briefing schedule.
Present counsel, in his brief, frames the one issue in this appeal as follows: “Did the
district court commit plain error and impose an unreasonable sentence under United States
v. Booker?” 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). Thus, in this Court, the defendant’s position is that his
sentence of 46 months imprisonment was “unreasonable” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
that, though that issue had not been raised in the district court, the district court had
committed “plain error” in sentencing the defendant to 46 months imprisonment. He asks
that we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. The position of the United
States is that the district court did not commit “error,” let alone “plain error,” in sentencing
defendant to imprisonment for 46 months, the low end of the guideline range, which had
3
been requested by his counsel. We affirm.
The PSR, which was not objected to by defendant’s counsel and was adopted by the
district court, set defendant’s base offense level at 8. Then, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
2L1.2(b)(1)(A), the PSR raised defendant’s offense level by 16 levels, i.e. to 24 levels.
That guideline provides as follows:
“(A) a conviction for a felony that is (i) a drug trafficking
offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months;
(ii) a crime of violence; (iii) a firearms offense; (iv) a child
pornography offense; (v) a national security or terrorism
offense; (vi) a human trafficking offense; or (vii) an alien
smuggling offense, increase by 16 levels.” (emphasis ours)
As heretofore stated, the conviction which resulted in the defendant being deported
from the United States to Mexico was his conviction in a Washington State Court for Rape
of a Child. As to just what constitutes a “crime of violence,” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, Application
Note 1 (B)(iii) provides as follows:
“Crime of violence” means any of the following: murder,
manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, forcible sex
offenses, statutory rape, sexual abuse of a minor, robbery,
arson, extortion, extortionate extension of credit, burglary of a
dwelling, or any offense under federal, state, or local law that
has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
physical force against the person of another. (emphasis added)
It would thus appear that under the guidelines there was no error in raising
defendant’s base offense level of 8 by 16 levels based on his Washington state conviction
for Rape of a Child. Counsel agrees that this particular matter is resolved by United States
v. Hernandez-Castillo, 449 F.3d 1127, 1131 (10th Cir. 2006), where we held that statutory
4
rape was a “crime of violence”. However, in this regard counsel apparently suggests that
the guidelines themselves are “unreasonable” in that they raise defendant’s offense level by
16 levels, which is the same increase that would be given one whose prior conviction
causing a deportation, by way of example, was for murder. We recognized that concern in
Hernandez-Castillo, supra, but because the “reasonableness” of the sentence in that case
was not raised in the district court, nor in the appeal, we, in that case, affirmed the sentence
imposed by the district court.
In the instant case, in the district court, the issue of “reasonableness” was not raised.
However, unlike Hernandez-Castillo, the issue is raised in the instant case on appeal. Not
having been raised in the district court, there remains the question of whether it was “plain
error” on the part of the district court in not at least considering, and hopefully, imposing a
sentence less than the low end of the guideline range, which was imprisonment for 46
months.
At sentencing, defendant did not object to the procedure by which his sentence was
determined. Rather his counsel stated that the PSR “is absolutely factually correct” and
asked that defendant’s sentence be at the “low end of the guideline.” The district court then
sentenced defendant to the “lowest end” of the guideline range, i.e., 46 months
imprisonment. In such circumstance, the “reasonableness” of his 46-month sentence
cannot be raised on appeal absent “plain error” by the district court. Plain error occurs
when there is “error,” which is “plain” error. But even if we find “plain error,” before we
will consider the issue we must also find that the “plain error” also “affects the defendant’s
5
substantial rights” and “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.” Lopez v. Flores, 444 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 2006.)
In support of his claim that the sentence of 46 months imprisonment was
“unreasonable” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that the district court erred in not, sua
sponte, so to speak, sentencing the defendant to imprisonment to less than the 46-month
sentence, which was the minimum guideline sentence, counsel argues that the “family
problems” of the defendant should have been considered. Counsel points out that the
defendant is supporting his needy father in Mexico who has health problems, as well as
supporting his sister, and that his “partner” and their new-born child in Mexico are also
looking to him for support. We are not pursuaded.
In this general regard, a sentence within the guideline range is “presumptively
reasonable.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007). However, “the
defendant may rebut this presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable in
light of the other sentencing factors laid out in § 3553(a).” United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d
1050, 1055 (10th Cir. 2006). Without belaboring the matter, the present record, in our
view, does not “rebut” the presumption that under the facts in this case, a sentence within
the guideline range is “presumptively reasonable.” Such being the case, there was no
6
“plain error” on the part of the district court in sentencing to the lowest end of the guideline
range.
Judgment affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. McWilliams,
Senior Circuit Judge
7