Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-7-2005
USA v. Santos-Estrella
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2346
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Santos-Estrella" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 891.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/891
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case No.: 04-2346
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ROBERTO SANTOS-ESTRELLA,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No.: 03-CR-00759
District Judge: The Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin
Argued June 29, 2005
Before: NYGAARD, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed:July 7, 2005)
David E. Troyer [Argued]
Office of the United States Attorney
615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Counsel for Appellee
Robert Epstein
Brett G. Sweitzer [Argued]
Defender Association of Philadelphia
Federal Court Division
601 Walnut Street
1
Suite 540 West - The Curtis Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Counsel for Appellant
OPINION OF THE COURT
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Roberto Santos-Estrella pleaded guilty to being an alien who unlawfully reentered
the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He was
sentenced to forty-one months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised
release. This appeal does not challenge his conviction. Rather, Santos-Estrella contends,
for the first time, that the District Court erred in calculating his offense level under United
States Sentencing Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) by applying the 16 level
enhancement for prior “drug trafficking” offenses. Application of this enhancement,
according to Santos-Estrella, was precluded under the formal categorical approach
embraced in United States v. Taylor, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), because the New York statute
under which he had been previously convicted required proof of possession only. Santos-
Estrella also asserts that the District Court erred in refusing to depart downward because
it believed it lacked the authority to do so. Relying on Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct.
2531 (2004), Santos-Estrella argues that the District Court’s findings at sentencing
violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
On March 9, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United
2
States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), holding that the federal sentencing guidelines
were not mandatory, but advisory only. Id. at 757. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s
decision, this Court requested that the parties address Booker’s applicability. Although
Santos-Estrella asserted that Booker applied, he maintained that the sentencing issues he
raised should be resolved.
Thereafter, in United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2005) (en banc), this
Court explained that in direct appeals of sentences imposed before Booker, where the
District Court erroneously treated the Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory and
where we are unable to “ascertain whether the District Court would have imposed a
greater or lesser sentence under an advisory framework,” prejudice in a plain error
analysis “can be presumed.” Id. at 164-65. We declared that a “[f]ailure to remand for
resentencing . . . could adversely affect the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.
Accordingly, defendants sentenced under the previously mandatory regime whose
sentences are being challenged on direct appeal may be able to demonstrate plain error
and prejudice.” Id. at 165. Thus, we concluded that in such cases a remand for
resentencing is warranted so the District Court may consider the appropriate sentence in
the first instance. Id. at 166.
In light of our holding in Davis, we asked counsel for Santos-Estrella during oral
argument whether, if we remanded for resentencing under Booker, we were required to
reach the issues he raised on appeal. We also noted that Santos-Estrella had not raised his
3
challenge to the sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) when he
was before the District Court and that there existed the possibility that the District Court
might agree with his position on remand. Counsel conceded that our consideration of the
appropriateness of this sentencing enhancement was not “a strict necessity.” We agree.
Consistent with Davis, 407 F.3d at 166, we conclude that the sentencing issues raised by
Santos-Estrella, including the applicability of both the enhancement in §
2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) and Taylor’s categorical approach, are best determined by the District
Court in the first instance. For that reason, we will affirm Santos-Estrella’s conviction,
vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker.
4