IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 27, 2009
No. 07-41132
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAVIER ANDRADE-AGUILAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
JENNIFER W. ELROD, Circuit Judge:
Javier Andrade-Aguilar (Andrade) appeals the district court’s imposition
of an eight-level sentence enhancement following his guilty-plea conviction for
illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues
that his second of two prior state law convictions for possession of a controlled
substance does not qualify as an “aggravated felony” under the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines, because the Government did not show that the preceding
conviction was final at the time he committed the second offense. We agree, and
accordingly reverse.
No. 07-41132
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The district court adopted the conclusion of the presentence report (“PSR”)
that Andrade’s second state law conviction for simple possession of less than one
gram of cocaine qualified as an “aggravated felony” under United States
Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). This finding of recidivism triggered an
eight-level enhancement.
Andrade objected to this finding, both in his written response to the PSR
and at sentencing. He contended that his first state law conviction was not yet
final by the time he committed the second state law offense, and that the latter
conviction could not therefore be considered an “aggravated felony” under federal
law. Judgment for the first state law offense was entered, and a sentence
imposed, on July 16, 2001 (“the July conviction”). The second state law offense
occurred slightly less than four months later, on November 9, 2001 (“the
November offense”).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the
Guidelines de novo. United States v. Adam, 296 F.3d 327, 334 (5th Cir. 2002).
B. Merits
1. “Aggravated Felony” under the CSA
Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provides for
an eight-level enhancement if the defendant has been convicted of an
“aggravated felony.” The term “aggravated felony” in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) includes
“any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act [CSA].” United
States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 334 (5th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks
omitted) (emphasis omitted). Our initial point of inquiry, therefore, is whether
either of Andrade’s state law convictions is punishable as a “felony” under the
CSA.
2
No. 07-41132
The Supreme Court has adopted the “hypothetical federal felony” approach
to determine whether a prior state law conviction constitutes a felony: courts
look to parallel federal law to see whether the offense, if prosecuted federally
(here, under the CSA), could carry a sentence exceeding one year. Lopez v.
Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 56 & n.7, 60 (2006). The parties agree that under federal
law, only Andrade’s conviction for the November offense could carry such a
sentence, and only if Andrade committed that offense after “a prior conviction
for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State,
has become final.” 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (emphasis added). Therefore, the narrow
question before us is whether Andrade’s first state law conviction, judgment of
which was entered July 16, 2001, was “final” for purposes of § 844(a) (and thus
§ 2L1.2) by the time he committed his second state law offense on November 9,
2001.1 Andrade preserved the issue of finality by objecting to the district court’s
determination of that question.2
2. “Finality” under the CSA
The Government contends that the fact of the July conviction, combined
with the passage of nearly four months, rendered the July conviction final by the
time of the November offense. The district court initially accepted the
Government’s argument that the July conviction was final, stating: “Well,
Exhibit 1 has – or Exhibit 2 has a stamp that says, ‘Appeal waived. No
1
Our pre- and post-Lopez decisions agree that the finality question is one of federal
law. See United States v. Fazande, 487 F.3d 307, 308 (5th Cir. 2007) (post-Lopez); United
States v. Morales, 854 F.2d 65, 68 (5th Cir. 1988) (pre-Lopez) (“We may examine state law, for
informational purposes, but we are not bound by its treatment of a felony conviction when we
apply the federal sentence-enhancement provisions.”).
2
This is a crucial distinction from the cases that were the focus of the letter briefs filed
by the parties in this case: United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335 (5th Cir. 2008)
(noting that defendant did not contest the finality of his prior state-law conviction); United
States v. Rosales-Hurtado, 309 F. App’x 909, 911 (5th Cir. 2009) (same); United States v. Cruz-
Meza, 2009 WL 330900, at *5 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2009) (unpublished) (defendant failed to assert
below that he had appealed his prior state-law conviction or that it “was otherwise not final
before he committed” the subsequent federal offense) (emphasis added). Andrade challenged
the finality of his prior state-law conviction both at sentencing and on appeal.
3
No. 07-41132
permission to appeal granted.’” Exhibit 2, however, is Andrade’s second state
law conviction—the conviction for the November offense. Counsel for Andrade
clarified this,3 but his objection was overruled. The district court proceeded to
recite information pertaining to the state law convictions.
[Andrade’s] objection’s overruled. The Court finds that they do meet
– I mean, there is sufficient evidence in the record of – of the fact
that they’re – cause number 882089. The date of the offense was
7/13/01. The date of judgment was 7/16/01 [the July conviction].
Sentence was imposed 7/16/01.
In Government’s Exhibit 2, which is the judgment on a plea of guilty
in cause number 893465, the date of arrest – or date of offense is
11/9/2001 [the November offense]. The adjudication and judgment
is December 12th, 2001, for possession of cocaine for which there
was a sentence of — I mean, so it was a felony offense for which he
was — received one year and — and it’s got age, JC, which
corresponds to the section which indicates that the sentence — the
punishment imposed is one year in the Harris County Jail.
And so pursuant to that evidence, the Court finds that it is a – these
convictions are considered a drug trafficking crime . . . because they
are punishable under the [CSA] and are felonies under federal law.
The court imposed an eight-level enhancement. It then adopted the findings of
the PSR, which calculated Andrade’s total offense level to be 13—a base level of
eight, plus the enhancement of eight, minus three levels for acceptance of
responsibility—and sentenced him to 34 months’ confinement.
There is no indication on the face of the July conviction (Exhibit 1) or
elsewhere in the record that Andrade waived appeal of the July conviction. For
the enhancement to have been correct, therefore, the July conviction must be
shown to have been final as of November 9, 2001.
3
The Government compounded the confusion of the two convictions in its brief, but
admitted the error at oral argument.
4
No. 07-41132
3. Burden of Demonstrating Finality under the CSA
Because the Government sought the sentencing enhancement, it bore the
burden to demonstrate finality. United States v. Herrera-Solorzano, 114 F.3d 48,
50 (5th Cir. 1997) (“The burden is on the party seeking to adjust the sentence
level to prove by a preponderance of the relevant and sufficiently reliable
evidence” that a prior conviction qualifies for the enhancement.) (quotation
marks omitted). In Herrera-Solorzano, we vacated the defendant’s sentence
because “[t]he district court erred in failing to put the government to its burden
of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that [defendant] indeed was
sentenced to a prison term of at least five years.” Id. The Government
complains that Andrade failed to “demonstrate that the earlier cocaine
possession conviction [the July conviction] was not final at the time he
committed the second cocaine possession offense.” But just as in Herrera-
Solorzano, it was the Government’s burden to demonstrate that fact, not
Andrade’s. We will now turn to the question whether the Government did so.
In claiming that the July conviction was final, the Government cites: (1)
the judgment of conviction itself, (2) the district court’s mistaken initial
conclusion that that appeal had been stamped “Appeal waived,” and (3) Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2(a).4 The Government also complains generally
of the difficulty of proving a negative (a defendant’s failure to appeal). We find
none of these arguments persuasive.
First, here as in Herrera-Solorzano, the judgment of conviction is not clear
enough on the controlling question to be probative (much less dispositive):
indeed, it contains no suggestion of waiver or finality whatsoever. See Herrera-
Solorzano, 114 F.3d at 50. Second, as noted above and ultimately conceded by
the Government at oral argument, the relevant conviction was not stamped
4
Additionally, the Government argues that Andrade waived appellate review of finality
by failing to present evidence that he had appealed the first conviction. However, because the
burden to demonstrate finality was the Government’s, this argument is of no avail.
5
No. 07-41132
“Appeal waived.” Third, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2(a) provides
merely that the defendant has 30 days from the date of sentencing to file a direct
appeal. Unclear from the record, however, is whether the period for both direct
and discretionary review had expired. We have explained:
[T]he final-conviction language of § 841(b)(1)(B) applies to a
conviction which is no longer subject to examination on direct
appeal, including an application for certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court, either because of disposition on appeal and
conclusion of the appellate process, or because of the passage,
without action, of the time for seeking appellate review.
United States v. Morales, 854 F.2d 65, 69 (5th Cir. 1988).5 In Smith v. Gonzales,
we found the provisions requiring finality of state court convictions contained in
§ 844(a) to be analogous to that found in § 841(b)(1). 468 F.3d 272, 277 (5th Cir.
2006) (quoting the language above from Morales). Thus, to show finality, the
Government was required to show by a preponderance of the evidence both that
(1) Andrade’s July conviction was “no longer subject to examination on direct
appeal” within the meaning of Morales, and (2) that it was not subject to
discretionary review by any court. See id. at 277–78 (finding that the deadline
for a direct appeal had passed but discretionary review was still available).
However, the Government failed to establish either of these two facts.6
Accordingly, the Government failed to prove by a “preponderance of the relevant
5
A petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court “seeking review
of a judgment of a lower state court that is subject to discretionary review by the state court
of last resort is timely when it is filed with the Clerk within 90 days after entry of the order
denying discretionary review.” SUP . CT . R. 13(1).
6
In some cases, the passage of a substantial period of time may itself satisfy these
requirements. See, e.g., United States v. Vasquez, 298 F.3d 354, 359 (5th Cir. 2002) (deeming
conviction final where 334 days had elapsed between date of prior conviction and date of
subsequent offense). Here, however, the gap between the prior (July) conviction, at which
sentence was imposed, and the subsequent (November) offense was 115 days. If Andrade
timely filed a direct appeal of his July conviction, that conviction may not have been final at
the time of his November offense. Even if any direct appeal was unsuccessful, a petition for
discretionary review filed before the November offense with the state court—or with the U.S.
Supreme Court, if denied by the state court—may have been timely.
6
No. 07-41132
and sufficiently reliable evidence” that Andrade’s July conviction was final and
thus that his conviction for the November offense qualified for the enhancement
imposed. Herrera-Solorzano, 114 F.3d at 50.
4. Error not Harmless
We further find that the error was not harmless. Andrade concedes that
he may have been eligible for a four-level increase under U.S.S.G.
§2L1.2(b)(1)(D), which he claims would yield a total offense level of 10. On that
analysis, given his criminal history category of VI, the appropriate Guidelines
range would have been 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment. Applying a total offense
level of 14, the district court calculated the range as 33–41 months, sentencing
Andrade to 34 months. Andrade therefore received at least four months more
than the longest sentence under the harshest Guidelines range for which he may
have been eligible. The district court did not indicate any departure or basis for
departure from a Guidelines sentence.
III. ON REMAND
On remand, the Government will bear the burden of demonstrating by a
preponderance of the relevant and sufficiently reliable evidence that, at the time
of his November offense, Andrade’s July conviction was subject to examination
neither by (1) direct review in the Texas courts nor (2) discretionary review in
any court. Smith, 468 F.3d at 277; Herrera-Solorzano, 114 F.3d at 50; Morales,
854 F.2d at 69. The key issue will be whether Andrade’s July conviction was
final, within the meaning of Morales, by the time of his November offense.7
7
Andrade argues that the Government is getting a second bite at the apple when it
already had ample opportunity to meet its burden in the district court. While this argument
has some force, our precedent favors remand. See, e.g., United States v. Martinez-Paramo, 380
F.3d 799, 806 (5th Cir. 2004) (observing that “the Government should have already obtained
and introduced all of the relevant documents into the record”—basic documents such as an
information, plea agreement, and plea colloquy—but nevertheless remanding for resentencing
and supplementation of the record).
7
No. 07-41132
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the sentence of the district court is VACATED
AND REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
8