Case: 10-40312 Document: 00511485506 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 23, 2011
No. 10-40312 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
JULIO ADALBERTO FLORES-VASQUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
Before JOLLY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
HAYNES, Circuit Judge:
Defendant-Appellant Julio Flores-Vasquez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2L1.2, the district court applied a sixteen-level
enhancement to his offense level for a prior conviction it found to be a crime of
violence. On appeal, Flores-Vasquez challenges the district court’s application
of this enhancement. We AFFIRM.
I. Background
Flores-Vasquez pleaded guilty to being unlawfully present in the United
States following removal. The probation officer preparing Flores-Vasquez’s
Case: 10-40312 Document: 00511485506 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2011
No. 10-40312
presentence investigation report (“PSR”) determined that his base offense level
was eight. The PSR recommended that Flores-Vasquez receive a sixteen-level
sentencing enhancement, determining that his 2006 robbery conviction in the
District of Columbia qualified as a crime of violence within the meaning of
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). With a three-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility and a criminal history category of V, Flores-Vasquez’s sentencing
range was determined to be 70-87 months. Flores-Vasquez objected to the
sixteen-level sentencing enhancement and his criminal history category. The
court overruled his objection to the enhancement, but granted a downward
departure for an over-representation of his criminal history, making his final
Guidelines range 46-57 months. The court sentenced him to 46 months
imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Flores-Vasquez timely
appealed his sentence.
II. Discussion
Flores-Vasquez argues that the district court’s application of the
sentencing enhancement was erroneous because his prior conviction was not for
a crime of violence. This court reviews de novo the characterization of a prior
offense as a crime of violence. United States v. Sanchez-Ruedas, 452 F.3d 409,
412 (5th Cir. 2006). The Guidelines commentary provides: “‘Crime of violence’
means any of the following offenses under federal, state, or local law: . . . robbery,
. . . , or any other offense under federal, state, or local law that has as an element
the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of
another.” U.S. S ENTENCING G UIDELINES M ANUAL § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii) (2011)
(emphasis added). Therefore, under this Guideline, an offense qualifies as a
crime of violence if it either is one of the enumerated offenses or has the
requisite “force” element. See United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469
F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2006). On appeal, the Government contends only that
Flores-Vasquez’s prior conviction was for the enumerated offense of robbery.
2
Case: 10-40312 Document: 00511485506 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2011
No. 10-40312
To determine whether a defendant’s prior statute of conviction constitutes
an enumerated offense, the court uses a “common sense approach.” See United
States v. Mungia-Portillo, 484 F.3d 813, 816 (5th Cir. 2007). Under this
approach, the court should examine whether Flores-Vasquez’s prior conviction
was a robbery “as that term is understood in its ordinary, contemporary, and
common meaning.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d at 378 (“Because the enhancement provision
does not define the predicate offense of ‘robbery,’ we must first find its ‘generic,
contemporary meaning,’ which this circuit has explained as the crime’s ‘ordinary,
contemporary, common meaning.’” (internal citations omitted)). We have
previously explained that “the generic form of robbery may be thought of as
aggravated larceny, containing at least the elements of misappropriation of
property under circumstances involving [immediate] danger to the person.”
Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d at 380 (internal quotation marks omitted)
(alteration in original). “The immediate danger element is what makes robbery
deserving of greater punishment than that provided for larceny and extortion.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Flores-Vasquez was convicted under
D.C. Code section 22-2801, which provides that “[w]hoever by force or violence,
whether against resistance or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching, or by
putting in fear, shall take from the person or immediate actual possession of
another anything of value, is guilty of robbery.” “If a statute contains multiple,
disjunctive subsections, courts may look beyond the statute to certain ‘conclusive
records made or used in adjudicating guilt’ in order to determine which
particular statutory alternative applies to the defendant’s conviction.” United
States v. Bonilla-Mungia, 422 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2005). The documents that
the court may look to in order to narrow the conviction include the “charging
document, written plea agreement, transcript of the plea colloquy, and any
explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented.”
3
Case: 10-40312 Document: 00511485506 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/23/2011
No. 10-40312
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005); United States v. Murillo-Lopez,
444 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2006).
Flores-Vasquez contends that because the statute of conviction includes
“stealthy snatching,” it does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence. The
D.C. Circuit has held that the D.C. robbery statute does not categorically qualify
as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1). See In re Sealed Case, 548
F.3d 1085, 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008).1 However, the Government cites our discussion
of a Texas statute (which did not explicitly include “stealthy snatching”) as
supporting its argument that the D.C. robbery statute qualifies as generic
robbery. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d at 381 (holding that a conviction
under a Texas robbery statute qualifies as generic robbery because its elements
“substantially correspond to the basic elements of the generic offense, in that
they both involve theft and immediate danger to a person”).2 We need not
resolve any tension among prior cases because we determine that the record
establishes that Flores-Vasquez’s prior conviction was not for “stealthy
snatching,” and thus indisputably qualifies as a crime of violence.
At the sentencing hearing, the Government entered the plea agreement,
indictment, and judgment from Flores-Vasquez’s 2006 robbery conviction. The
proffer of facts attached to the robbery plea agreement states that Flores-
Vasquez approached someone and “asked for five dollars. The complainant said
o.k., but defendant [Flores-Vasquez] then pulled out a long knife, about 8 inches
long, and held it to the complainant’s side. [Flores-Vasquez] then told the
1
As is relevant to this opinion, a prior conviction that would qualify for the “crime of
violence” enhancement under § 2L1.2 would also qualify for the enhancement under § 4B1.2.
See U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1 (2011).
2
In an unpublished opinion, we determined that a Florida statute involving “stealthy
snatching” did not meet the generic definition of robbery but did “by its nature, present[] a
serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” United States v. Bryant, 312 F. App’x 698,
702 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
4
Case: 10-40312 Document: 00511485506 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/23/2011
No. 10-40312
complainant that he had five seconds to give all the money, or he would use the
knife.” As Flores-Vasquez conceded at oral argument, the facts in the plea
agreement establish that his conduct fell well within the generic definition of
robbery. Thus, if the district court could rely upon the proffer of facts, it did not
err in applying the “crime of violence” enhancement. Conversely, without the
proffer, we have nothing narrowing the offense to exclude “stealthy snatching.”
Flores-Vasquez argues that the court cannot rely upon the proffer of facts
included in the plea agreement because the plea agreement shows that he
intended to enter an Alford plea3 to the robbery charge and that he did not
remember the facts of the robbery. In support of this argument, Flores-Vasquez
cites opinions in two other circuits addressing the use of factual proffers offered
concurrently with an Alford plea in the context of later sentencing
enhancements. See United States v. Alston, 611 F.3d 219, 227 (4th Cir. 2010);
United States v. Savage, 542 F.3d 959, 966 (2d Cir. 2008); see also United States
v. De Jesus Ventura, 565 F.3d 870, 879 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (stating that a
sentencing court may not rely on factual proffer accompanied only by a nolo
contendere plea). These cases, however, stand for the proposition that an Alford
plea is not, in itself, an admission of the facts in the prosecution’s proffer of facts.
They do not foreclose the possibility that a defendant can, independently of his
plea entry, confirm the prosecution’s proffer of facts. See, e.g., Alston, 611 F.3d
at 227 (“To be sure, the prosecutor’s proffer that the State’s witnesses were
prepared to testify that Alston pointed a gun at three individuals and threatened
to kill them would have established the predicate nature of the second-degree
3
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970). An Alford plea allows a
defendant to plead guilty while maintaining his factual innocence. Our circuit has previously
observed that this type of plea is “counter-intuitive” and “may prove confusing to some
defendants.” United States v. Punch, 709 F.2d 889, 895 & n.12 (5th Cir. 1983). There was
evidently some confusion here regarding what Flores-Vasquez intended to admit versus what
he actually admitted in the proffer.
5
Case: 10-40312 Document: 00511485506 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/23/2011
No. 10-40312
assault offense had Alston admitted these facts during his plea. But he explicitly
pleaded guilty without admitting those facts.”).
Indeed, the Second Circuit, in an opinion issued after Savage, affirmed a
district court’s use of a proffer of facts against a defendant who, while
purportedly entering an Alford plea, verified the Government’s proffer of facts.
See United States v. Escalera, 401 F. App’x 571, 573 (2d Cir. 2010). Similarly,
the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s sentencing enhancement in reliance
upon the Government’s proffer of facts in support of an Alford plea where the
defendant stipulated to the Government’s facts. See United States v. Martinez-
Vazquez, No. 09-10184, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26747, at *4-5 (9th Cir. Dec. 14,
2010) (unpublished). This circuit has similarly recognized that as part of an
Alford plea, a defendant may admit to some of the facts underlying his charges.
See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 398 (5th Cir. 2006) (“As part of his Alford
plea, Ballard admitted that he put [the victim] in fear and that he fired the 30/30
rifle several times while he was near officers.”). Therefore, the mere fact that a
defendant enters a plea denominated as an “Alford plea” does not preclude a
sentencing court from relying upon a proffer of facts which was independently
confirmed by the defendant.
Turning to the underlying record here, we conclude that it contains
independent verification of the necessary facts. As a part of his plea agreement,
Flores-Vasquez indicated that after taking an oath to tell the truth, he would
“agree to the attached factual proffer in open court on the date of the plea.”
Furthermore, his plea agreement indicates that he accepted the proffer of facts
and agreed that it would “be regarded as a true and accurate description of the
offense to which [he pleaded] guilty, and of [his] role in that offense.” 4
4
The plea agreement further indicates that Flores-Vasquez “does not doubt, and does
not dispute” the Government’s proffer of facts.
6
Case: 10-40312 Document: 00511485506 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/23/2011
No. 10-40312
Flores-Vasquez then argues that, despite these provisions, the plea
agreement as a whole indicates that he did not “admit” the truth of the proffer
of facts because it also states that Flores-Vasquez “is unable to remember much
of the events surrounding the crime to which he is pleading guilty.” 5 This
argument reads Shepard too narrowly. Though Shepard does state that the
court may rely only on those facts “necessarily admitted” by the defendant, 6
Shepard’s requirement is for a legal admission. As Shepard itself notes, “in
pleaded cases, [the closest analogs to jury instructions] would be the statement
of factual basis for the charge, shown by a . . . written plea agreement presented
to the court, or by a record of comparable finding of fact adopted by the
defendant upon entering the plea.” 544 U.S. at 20 (emphasis added); see also id.
at 16 (courts may rely on factual findings “to which the defendant assented”); id.
at 25 (plurality opinion) (“[T]he only certainty of a generic finding lies in . . . the
defendant’s own admissions or accepted findings of fact confirming the factual
basis for a valid plea.” (emphasis added)). Other circuits have similarly
recognized that Shepard requires only that the defendant legally admitted the
facts relied upon by the sentencing court. See Alston, 611 F.3d at 223 (“[The
defendant] did not adopt or accept the facts proffered by the government.”); De
Jesus Ventura, 565 F.3d at 879 (“[W]hen a defendant who pleads guilty ‘adopt[s]’
the government’s factual statement, he is necessarily convicted of those facts.”);
see also Martinez-Vazquez, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26747, at *5 (allowing use of
factual basis to which the defendant “stipulated”).
5
Flores-Vasquez argues that the plea agreement is thus ambiguous and should be
construed against the Government. We note, however, that the plea agreement we are asked
to interpret in this case is not one currently before the court. Our disposition of this appeal
makes it unnecessary to decide the issue of whether we must construe a plea agreement from
a prior conviction (rather than the conviction on appeal) against the Government.
6
See Shepard, 544 U.S. at 26.
7
Case: 10-40312 Document: 00511485506 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/23/2011
No. 10-40312
As noted above, the plea agreement here states that Flores-Vasquez would
“agree [under oath] to the attached factual proffer in open court,” and
acknowledges that the proffer would be “regarded as a true and accurate
description of the offense” and his “role in that offense.” Therefore, we conclude
that the district court was not in error in relying on the proffer because Flores-
Vasquez adopted the truth of the Government’s proffer of facts as required by
Shepard.7
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court did not err in
finding that Flores-Vasquez’s 2006 robbery conviction qualified as a crime of
violence and accordingly applying a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s
sentence.
7
Further bolstering our conclusion, the D.C. Circuit has noted that when a defendant
admits to violent aspects of a robbery under § 22-2801, “the trial court [is] precluded from
accepting his plea based on a finding that the appellant committed the robbery merely by
stealth, and thus the element of violent compulsion would have been necessary to his
conviction.” In re Sealed Case, 548 F.3d at 1091. Because, under the plea agreement, Flores-
Vasquez’s use of a knife was “regarded as a true and accurate description of the offense,” the
trial court here was similarly precluded from determining that he committed a robbery merely
by stealth. The factual proffer attached to the plea agreement therefore served a function
similar to a “generically limited charging document,” which would be sufficient “in any sort
of case.” Shepard, 544 U.S. at 21; see also United States v. Vinton, 631 F.3d 476, 486 (8th Cir.
2011).
8