United States v. Castro-Vazquez, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Castro-Vazquez, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1508

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

ADEMI R CASTRO- VAZQUEZ,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J os A. Fust , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Barr on, Sel ya, and Dyk, *

Ci r cui t J udges.

Susan Z. J or gensen, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t hwhom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr i guez- Vel ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Nel sonPr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef , Appel l at eDi vi si on, and Car men M. Mr quez- Mar n, Ass i st ant Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Sharon L. Beckman, wi t h whom Lar i ssa Warr en and Gr aham D.Wel ch wer e on br i ef , f or def endant - appel l ant .

Sept ember 4, 2015

*Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/24

DYK, Circuit Judge. Ademi r Cast r o- Vasquez pl ed gui l t y t o

bei ng a pr ohi bi t ed per son i n possessi on of a f i r ear m i n vi ol at i on

of 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) . On appeal he chal l enges hi s convi ct i on

and the 78- mont h sent ence i mposed by t he Uni t ed St ates Di st r i ct

Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co. We af f i r mCast r o- Vazquez s

convi ct i on, but we vacat e and r emand f or r econsi der at i on of t he

sent ence because t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n i t s appr oach t o

appl yi ng a t en- l evel sent enci ng enhancement under t he Uni t ed St ates

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes ( "gui del i nes") 2K2. 1( a) ( 2) .

I.

On September 26, 2012, act i ng on an anonymous t i p, Puer t o

Ri co Pol i ce Depar t ment of f i cer s wer e i nvest i gat i ng t he pr esence of

suspi ci ous per sons at a gas st at i on i n Tr uj i l l o Al t o, Puer t o Ri co.

They obser ved Cast r o- Vazquez, al l egedl y paci ng ner vousl y,

accompani ed by anot her man, Al l en Mi r anda- Mel endez, f i l l i ng a

cont ai ner wi t h gas f or a car par ked near by at t he si de of a rur al

r oad. One of f i cer observed a bul ge on Cast r o- Vazquez s wai st .

Af t er st oppi ng t he two men at t he parked car , Cast r o- Vazquez was

asked t o l i f t up hi s shi r t , whi ch he r ef used t o do. One of t he

of f i cer s t hen l i f t ed up Cast r o- Vazquez s shi r t , and saw a f i r ear m

on hi s wai st , at whi ch poi nt both men were arr est ed.

Cast r o- Vazquez was charged wi t h bei ng a convi ct ed f el on

i n possessi on of a f i r ear m under 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) . Mi r anda-

Mel endez was char ged wi t h conspi r i ng wi t h Cast r o- Vazquez t o commi t

- 2-


3/24

r obbery under 18 U. S. C. 1951( b) ( 1) , t hough Cast r o- Vazquez was not

hi msel f char ged wi t h such a conspi r acy.

At hi s ar r ai gnment on Oct ober 17, 2012, Cast r o- Vazquez

pl ed not gui l t y. The magi st r at e j udge or der ed t hat t he par t i es

woul d have "7 days f or di scover y and 14 days t her eaf t er t o f i l e any

mot i ons. " At a st atus conf erence hel d November 7, 2012, t he

di st r i ct cour t set t r i al f or December 3, 2012, and r ef used t he

def ense counsel s r equest f or addi t i onal t i me. On November 30,

2012, t he def ense counsel f i l ed a mot i on t o cont i nue t he t r i al f or

one week. The cour t i nst ead gr ant ed a one- day cont i nuance t o

December 4.

Two days bef or e t r i al was schedul ed, Mi r anda- Mel endez s

at t or ney f i l ed a mot i on t o suppr ess cer t ai n i ncr i mi nat i ng

st atement s that Mi r anda- Mel endez had al l egedl y made. One day

bef or e t r i al was schedul ed, Cast r o- Vazquez s at t or ney al so f i l ed a

mot i on t o suppr ess evi dence, i ncl udi ng t he f i r ear m and a mobi l e

phone wi t h pi ct ur es of t he def endant car r yi ng t he f i r ear m, sei zed

at t he t i me of Cast r o- Vazquez s ar r est . Cast r o- Vazquez al l eged

t hat t hi s evi dence shoul d be suppr essed because i t was t he r esul t

of an unl awf ul war r ant l ess sear ch, sei zur e, and ar r est i n vi ol at i on

of t he Four t h Amendment . I n opposi ng t he mot i on t o suppr ess, t he

gover nment r ai sed no t i mel i ness obj ect i on t o t he mot i on. I nst ead,

t he gover nment ar gued t hat t he of f i cer s had r easonabl e suspi ci on t o

st op and f r i sk Cast r o- Vazquez, and pr obabl e cause t o ar r est hi m.

- 3-


4/24

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed bot h def endant s mot i ons, st at i ng t hat ,

wi t h r espect t o Cast r o- Vazquez s mot i on, t he cour t "wi l l not

ent er t ai n a mot i on t o suppr ess f i l ed on t he eve of t r i al . " The

cour t al so st at ed that Mi r anda- Mel endez and Cast r o- Vazquez shoul d

make t hei r suppr essi on ar gument s " at t r i al and as par t of t he Rul e

29 mot i on. " I d.

Mi r anda- Mel endez chose t o take t he di st r i ct cour t s

r ecommended cour se. He went t o t r i al and r equest ed suppr essi on of

t he i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s. The di st r i ct cour t suppr essed t he

st at ement s and di smi ssed hi s case appar ent l y because, i n t he

absence of t he st at ement s, t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence.

Cast r o- Vazquez, however , t ook a di f f er ent t ack. On t he mor ni ng

t r i al was t o begi n and bef ore t he j ur y was empanel ed, at about

10: 30 A. M. , Cast r o- Vazquez s counsel asked f or t en mi nut es f or a

bench conf erence, dur i ng whi ch she r enewed t he mot i on t o suppr ess.

The cour t agai n r ef used t o hear t he mot i on, not i ng t hat counsel

"f i l ed i t hour s bef or e t r i al woul d st ar t " and t hat t he cour t "wi l l

not consi der a l at e mot i on" because "[ m] ot i ons t o suppr ess have t o

be t i mel y f i l ed. " The cour t al so st at ed t hat i t woul d al l ow t he

suppr essi on i ssue t o be r ai sed at t r i al , expr essl y st at i ng t hat t he

poi nt was "pr eserv[ ed] . " The bench conf er ence f or bot h def endant s

l ast ed unt i l about 11: 00 A. M. About a hal f hour l at er , Cast r o-

Vazquez r equest ed a change- of - pl ea hear i ng. At t he col l oquy, t he

di st r i ct cour t asked Cast r o- Vazquez a number of quest i ons t o ensure

- 4-


5/24

t hat he underst ood t he charges and was pl eadi ng vol unt ar i l y. When

asked whet her he was sat i sf i ed wi t h hi s at t or ney s wor k, Cast r o-

Vazquez appar ent l y r esponded i n t he af f i r mat i ve but wi t h what t he

di st r i ct cour t char acter i zed as a "gr i mace. " The di st r i ct cour t

r epeat ed t he quest i on and t ol d Cast r o- Vazquez he di d not have t o

pl ead gui l t y, but Cast r o- Vazquez not ed he was not bei ng f or ced t o

pl ead gui l t y, and t he cour t accept ed t he pl ea.

Cast r o- Vazquez was sent enced on March 22, 2013. At hi s

sent enci ng hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t sent enced hi mt o 78 mont hs,

usi ng as a gui del i ne r ange 63 to 78 mont hs, based on a t otal

of f ense l evel of 22 and a cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I V. The

t ot al of f ense l evel of 22 was cal cul at ed by r el yi ng on Sect i on

2K2. 1 of t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, whi ch pr ovi des a pr i or f el ony

enhancement f or unl awf ul possessi on of a f i r ear m. The base of f ense

l evel i s i ncr eased f r om 14 t o 24 " i f t he def endant commi t t ed any

par t of t he i nst ant of f ense subsequent t o sust ai ni ng at l east t wo

f el ony convi ct i ons of ei t her a cr i me of vi ol ence or a cont r ol l ed

subst ance of f ense. " U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1( a) ( 2) . The t ot al of f ense

l evel was 22 because Cast r o- Vazquez was al so gi ven a t wo- l evel

r educt i on f or hi s accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y. The di st r i ct cour t

di d not st at e whi ch of Cast r o- Vazquez s pri or convi ct i ons wer e

r el i ed on t o ar r i ve at t he gui del i ne r ange, r el yi ng i nst ead on t he

pr esent ence r epor t . The r epor t st at ed t hat t he base of f ense l evel

was cal cul at ed pur suant t o Sect i on 2K2. 1( a) ( 2) , and l i st ed seven

- 5-


6/24

pr i or convi ct i ons ( wi t h t hr ee separ at e concur r ent sent ences) f or

bur gl ar y, r obber y, and cer t ai n dr ug- r el at ed cr i mes, but t he r epor t

al so di d not st at e whi ch of t hose pr i or convi ct i ons wer e r el i ed on

f or t he pr i or f el ony enhancement . Cast r o- Vazquez ent er ed no

obj ect i ons t o t he cont ent s of t he r epor t ( t hough as di scussed bel ow

t her e i s a quest i on whet her t her e was ver i f i cat i on t hat Cast r o-

Vazquez " r ead and di scussed" t he repor t wi t h counsel , see Fed. R.

Cr i m. P. 32( i ) ( 1) ( A) ) . Dur i ng sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct cour t

r eci t ed some f act s concer ni ng Cast r o- Vazquez s pr i or cr i mi nal

act i vi t y al l eged i n t he r epor t , and not ed t hat t he sent ences f or

hi s pr i or convi ct i ons had been concur r ent and t oo l eni ent .

II.

Cast r o- Vazquez chal l enges t he vol unt ar i ness of hi s

uncondi t i onal gui l t y pl ea. Al t hough bot h Cast r o- Vazquez and t he

government suggest t he st andard of r evi ew i s de novo, i n f act we

have yet t o deci de whether , when a def endant chal l enges t he

vol unt ar i ness of a pl ea on gr ounds ot her t han a Rul e 11 er r or ,

r evi ew i s de novo even i f def endant di d not obj ect bel ow. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Mor al es, 647 F. 3d 395, 398 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ; Sot i r i on v. Uni t ed St at es, 617 F. 3d 27, 34 n. 6 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) . We need not deci de t he i ssue now si nce we concl ude t hat ,

even under a de novo st andar d of r evi ew, Cast r o- Vazquez s gui l t y

pl ea has not been shown on thi s r ecor d t o have been i nvol unt ary,

- 6-


7/24

r eser vi ng f or a Sect i on 2255 pr oceedi ng t he quest i on of i nef f ect i ve

assi st ance of counsel .

We f i r st addr ess Cast r o- Vazquez s compl ai nt t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n r ef usi ng t o deci de t he mot i on t o suppr ess

bef or e t r i al . Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e Rul e 12( b) ( 3)

r equi r es t hat a mot i on t o suppr ess "must be rai sed by pr et r i al

mot i on, " Fed. R. Cr i m. P. R. 12( b) ( 3) ( 2007) , "[ b] ef or e [ t ] r i al , "

i d. However , t he cour t "may, at t he ar r ai gnment or as soon

af t er war d as pr act i cabl e, set a deadl i ne f or t he par t i es t o make

pr et r i al mot i ons. " I d. R. 12( c) ( 1) . Ei t her way, t he cour t "must

deci de ever y pr et r i al mot i on bef or e t r i al unl ess i t f i nds good

cause t o def er a r ul i ng. " I d. R. 12( d) .

Her e, t he magi st r at e j udge at ar r ai gnment had set a

deadl i ne of "7 days f or di scover y and 14 days t her eaf t er t o f i l e

any mot i ons. " Rel yi ng on hi s asser t i on t hat di scover y i n f act was

not compl et ed wi t hi n t he seven- day per i od and was not compl eted

unt i l December 3, 2012, Cast r o- Vazquez aver s t hat hi s December 3,

2012, mot i on t o suppr ess was wel l wi t hi n t he f our t een- day post -

di scover y deadl i ne. The onl y ef f ect i ve deadl i ne, he says, was thus

t he def aul t deadl i ne i n Rul e 12( b) ( 3) : t hat pr et r i al mot i ons t o

suppr ess must be f i l ed "[ b] ef or e [ t ] r i al . "

"Bef or e t r i al " i n Rul e 12( b) ( 3) means bef or e t he j ur y i s

empanel ed. The mai n pur pose of Rul e 12( d) s r equi r ement t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t hear pr et r i al mot i ons bef or e t r i al i s t hat "[ w] er e

- 7-


8/24

a def endant abl e t o del ay such a mot i on unt i l t r i al , he coul d

pr event t he gover nment f r omappeal i ng" because j eopardy woul d have

at t ached at t r i al . Uni t ed St at es v. Bar l et t a, 644 F. 2d 50, 5455

( 1st Ci r . 1981) . And i t i s "[ o] nce a j ur y has been swor n [ i n t hat ]

j eopar dy at t aches, [ and] t he gover nment l oses i t s r i ght t o appeal

an adver se r ul i ng on suppr essi on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Nuez, 19 F. 3d

719, 723 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Tayl or , 792 F. 2d

1019, 1025 ( 11t h Ci r . 1986) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Di t t us, 453

F. 2d 1335, 1336 ( 3d Ci r . 1972) ( hol di ng t hat a r enewed mot i on f or

suppr essi on at t he t i me of j ur y sel ect i on was unt i mel y) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Al l i ed St evedor i ng Cor p. , 241 F. 2d 925, 931 ( 2d Ci r .

1957) ( hol di ng t hat mot i on t o suppr ess del ayed unt i l "40 j ur or s had

been assembl ed, and the prosecut i on was about t o open" was

unt i mel y) . Her e Cast r o- Vazquez f i l ed a mot i on t o suppr ess t he day

bef or e t r i al began. He ar gues t hat because t he di st r i ct cour t di d

not set a deadl i ne r equi r i ng t he suppr essi on mot i on t o be f i l ed at

an ear l i er t i me, t he mot i on was t i mel y, and t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed i n f i ndi ng i t t o have been unt i mel y. Whet her t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed i n not deci di ng t he mot i on bef or e t r i al and whet her

Cast r o- Vazquez had st andi ng t o compl ai n of t hat er r or are quest i ons

t hat we need not addr ess. That i s so because, even i f not deci di ng

t he mot i on bef or e t r i al was er r or , Cast r o- Vazquez wai ved t hi s

ar gument by pl eadi ng gui l t y uncondi t i onal l y.

- 8-


9/24

I t i s wel l - est abl i shed t hat an uncondi t i onal gui l t y pl ea

r esul t s i n t he wai ver of er r or s pr ecedi ng t he pl ea. As t he Supr eme

Cour t hel d i n Tol l et t v. Hender son, 411 U. S. 258 ( 1973) , " [ w] hen a

cr i mi nal def endant has sol emnl y admi t t ed i n open cour t t hat he i s

i n f act gui l t y of t he of f ense wi t h whi ch he i s char ged, he may not

t her eaf t er r ai se i ndependent cl ai ms r el at i ng t o t he depr i vat i on of

const i t ut i onal r i ght s t hat occur r ed pr i or t o t he ent r y of t he

gui l t y pl ea. " I d. at 267. Thi s cour t has "assi duousl y f ol l owed

t he l et t er and spi r i t of Tol l et t , hol di ng wi t h monot onous

r egul ar i t y t hat an uncondi t i onal gui l t y pl ea ef f ect uat es a wai ver

of any and al l i ndependent non- j ur i sdi ct i onal l apses t hat may have

mar r ed t he case s pr ogr ess up t o t hat poi nt . " Uni t ed St at es v.

Cor der o, 42 F. 3d 697, 699 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . So l ong as t he

uncondi t i onal gui l t y pl ea i s knowi ng and vol unt ar y, t he Tol l et t

r ul e appl i es. See Tol l et t , 411 U. S. at 267 ( t he def endant " may

onl y at t ack t he vol unt ar y and i nt el l i gent char act er of t he gui l t y

pl ea") . 1

1 Cast r o- Vazquez ci t es di ct a i n Uni t ed St at es v. Gaf f ney,469 F. 3d 211, 215 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) , st at i ng t hat const i t ut i onalvi ol at i ons t hat ar e not " i ndependent " of a pl ea but r at her"i nt er t wi ned wi t h t he pl ea i t sel f " mi ght "evade[ ] Tol l et t sst r i ct ur es. " I d. at 215. But i ndependent of counsel s pot ent i al

i nef f ecti ve assi st ance, t he di st r i ct cour t s possi bl e vi ol at i on ofRul e 12 woul d not r i se t o t he l evel of a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on.I n addi t i on, t he mer e " f act of a pendi ng t r i al does not ser ve t omake an eve- of - t r i al pl ea i nvol unt ar y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Whi t e,734 F. 3d 843, 849 ( 8t h Ci r . 2013) ; see al so Doe v. Woodf ord, 508F. 3d 563, 56972 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ( t wo hour s t o consi der a pl eabar gai n di d not r ender pl ea i nvol unt ar y) .

- 9-


10/24

Ther e i s no basi s t o concl ude on t hi s r ecor d t hat t he

pl ea was unknowi ng or i nvol unt ar y. Cast r o- Vazquez does not al l ege

t he di st r i ct cour t coer ced or mi si nf or med hi mi n hi s change of pl ea

hear i ng. See, e. g. , Mack v. Uni t ed St at es, 635 F. 2d 20, 25 ( 1st

Ci r . 1980) . I nst ead, he ar gues t hat t he gui l t y pl ea was

i nvol unt ar y because of hi s counsel s i nef f ect i veness. Hi s theor y

appear s t o be that t he suppr essi on mot i on was a st r ong one ( as

al l egedl y evi denced by t he success of hi s co- def endant s mot i on)

and t hat Cast r o- Vazquez s counsel was i nef f ect i ve because she

f ai l ed t o counsel Cast r o- Vazquez t o go to t r i al and pur sue the

suppr essi on mot i on.

I n such ci r cumst ances, t hi s cour t wi l l not r evi ew a cl ai m

of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel on di r ect appeal . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Vzquez- Lar r aur i , 778 F. 3d 276, 29394 ( 1st Ci r . 2015)

( "As a gener al r ul e, t hi s cour t does not r evi ew i nef f ect i ve

assi st ance of counsel cl ai ms on di r ect appeal . . . except [ ] wher e

t he cr i t i cal f act s ar e not genui nel y i n di sput e and t he r ecor d i s

suf f i ci ent l y devel oped . . . . " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks,

ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r es- Rosar i o, 447 F. 3d 61,

64 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( "Si xth Amendment at t acks on counsel ar e r ar el y

al l owed on di r ect appeal because t hey requi r e f i ndi ngs as t o what

happened and, as i mpor t ant , why counsel acted as he di d

i nf or mat i on r ar el y devel oped i n t he exi st i ng r ecor d. ") ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Mal a, 7 F. 3d 1058, 1063 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( same) .

- 10-


11/24

Cast r o- Vazquez r el i es on Uni t ed St at es v. Mer cedes- De La

Cr uz, 787 F. 3d 61 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) , as per mi t t i ng a di r ect appeal

chal l enge t o counsel s ef f ect i veness, but t hat case i s

di st i ngui shabl e. Ther e, i n a "r ar e case, " i d. at 63, t hi s cour t

r evi ewed an i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai m on di r ect

appeal because i t was cl ear t hat t he def ense at t or ney si mpl y "never

f i l ed a mot i on t o suppr ess on behal f of [ t he def endant ] , much l ess

a t i mel y one, " i d. at 67, even t hough t he mot i on woul d "qui t e

l i kel y" have been mer i t or i ous, i d. at 68, and hi s co- def endant s,

who had l ess pl ausi bl e gr ounds f or doi ng so, di d f i l e t i mel y

mot i ons, i d. at 67. But her e, t her e i s a quest i on whet her t he

suppr essi on mot i on Cast r o- Vazquez di d f i l e was i n f act t i mel y. And

f ur t her , Cast r o- Vazquez s cl ai m i nvol ves hi ghl y f act - dependent

quest i ons as t o whether Cast r o- Vazquez was adequatel y counsel ed t o

pl ea when hi s suppr essi on mot i on coul d be consi dered at t r i al .

"An i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai mt hat r equi r es

f ur t her f act ual det er mi nat i ons shoul d be br ought t hr ough a

col l at er al pr oceedi ng i n di st r i ct cour t under 28 U. S. C. 2255. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Reyes, 352 F. 3d 511, 517 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ; see al so

Mal a, 7 F. 3d at 1063 ( "When f aced wi t h si mi l ar si t uat i ons i n

compar abl e cases, we have r out i nel y di smi ssed t he r el evant por t i on

of t he appeal wi t hout pr ej udi ce t o t he def endant ' s r i ght t o

l i t i gat e hi s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai mt hr ough t he medi umof an

appl i cat i on f or post- convi ct i on r el i ef . ") . I n t hi s case, t he

- 11-


12/24

i nef f ecti ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai m i s suf f i ci ent l y compl ex

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t may f i nd i t desi r abl e t o appoi nt counsel i f

Cast r o- Vazquez pet i t i ons f or Sect i on 2255 r el i ef . See Mal a, 7 F. 3d

at 106364 ( di r ect i ng di st r i ct cour t t o appoi nt counsel f or Sect i on

2255 pr oceedi ng because const i t ut i onal cl ai m was col or abl e,

f act ual l y and l egal l y compl ex, and i ncar cer at ed appel l ant was

hamper ed i n hi s abi l i t y t o i nvest i gat e undevel oped f act s) .

III.

We now t ur n t o i ssues concerni ng Cast r o- Vazquez s

sent enci ng. Cast r o- Vazquez obj ect s t o t he pr i or f el ony enhancement

pur suant t o Sect i on 2K2. 1 of t he gui del i nes, whi ch r esul t ed i n a

t ot al of f ense l evel of 22. As expl ai ned above, t he di st r i ct cour t

appar ent l y der i ved t he pr i or f el ony enhancement f r om t he

pr esent ence r epor t s descr i pt i on of Cast r o- Vazquez s pr i or

convi ct i ons. Sect i on 2K2. 1 pr ovi des f or a pr i or f el ony enhancement

" i f t he def endant commi t t ed any par t of t he i nst ant of f ense

subsequent t o sust ai ni ng at l east t wo f el ony convi ct i ons of ei t her

a cr i me of vi ol ence or a cont r ol l ed subst ance of f ense. " U. S. S. G

2K2. 1( a) ( 2) . Cast r o- Vazquez cont ends that hi s pr i or convi ct i ons

di d not sat i sf y t he r equi r ement of at l east t wo cr i me- of - vi ol ence

or cont r ol l ed- subst ance of f enses.

Bel ow, Cast r o- Vazquez f ai l ed t o obj ect t o t he sent ence

i mposed, so our r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v.

Serr ano- Mer cado, 784 F. 3d 838, 84445 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) . Cast r o-

- 12-


13/24

Vazquez must t hus demonst r ate " ( 1) t hat an err or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch

was cl ear or obvi ous and whi ch not onl y (3) af f ect ed [ hi s]

subst ant i al r i ght s, but al so ( 4) ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness,

i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Duar t e, 246 F. 3d 56, 60 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) .

Bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , t he gover nment r el i ed on

sever al pr i or convi ct i ons l i st ed i n t he pr esent ence r epor t ,

i ncl udi ng r obber y, bur gl ar y, and dr ug convi ct i ons. 2 On appeal ,

however , t he government does not argue t hat Cast r o- Vazquez s drug

convi ct i ons qual i f y as pr edi cat e of f enses and r el i es onl y on t he

r obber y and bur gl ar y convi ct i ons. Under t hi s appr oach, i f ei t her

t he bur gl ar y or r obber y convi ct i on f ai l ed t o qual i f y as a "cr i me of

vi ol ence, " t here woul d have been no basi s f or an enhancement .

The gui del i nes def i ne t he t er m "cr i me of vi ol ence" i n

Sect i on 2K2. 1( a) ( 2) as:

[ A] ny of f ense under f eder al or st at e l aw, puni shabl e byi mpr i sonment f or a t er m exceedi ng one year , t hat ( 1) has as an el ement t he use, at t empt ed use, ort hr eat ened use of physi cal f or ce agai nst t he per son ofanot her , or( 2) i s bur gl ar y of a dwel l i ng, ar son, or ext or t i on,i nvol ves use of expl osi ves or ot her wi se i nvol vesconduct t hat pr esent s a ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk ofphysi cal i nj ur y t o anot her .

2 Al so l i st ed i n t he r epor t wer e i l l egal appr opr i at i on andaggr avated damages convi ct i ons wi t h sent ences ser ved concur r ent l ywi t h t he bur gl ar y convi ct i on. The par t i es appar ent l y agr ee t hatt hose ar e not r el evant t o t hi s appeal .

- 13-


14/24

U. S. S. G. 4B1. 2( a) . 3 Thus, t o qual i f y as a cr i me of vi ol ence, a

pr i or convi ct i on must cont ai n an el ement of t he t hr eat , use, or

at t empt ed use of f or ce, be one of t he "enumer at ed of f enses, " such

as bur gl ar y of a dwel l i ng, or f al l wi t hi n what i s known as t he

"r esi dual cl ause" because i t i nvol ves conduct t hat "pr esent s a

ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y. " See Uni t ed St at es v.

Rami r ez, 708 F. 3d 295, 300 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . I n or der t o det er mi ne

whet her a pr i or convi ct i on count s as a cr i me of vi ol ence, we appl y

t he f r amework out l i ned by t he Supr eme Cour t i n Descamps v. Uni t ed

St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2276 ( 2013) . See Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos-

Gonzl ez, 775 F. 3d 483, 50405 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) . 4 We l ook t o t he

el ement s of t he pr i or convi ct i ons as def i ned by t he r el evant

st at ut e not t o t he par t i cul ar f act s under l yi ng t he convi ct i ons,

see Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2283 and we compar e t hose t o t he

el ement s of t he cr i mes descr i bed i n t he gui del i ne s def i ni t i on.

I f t he st at ut e i s i ndi vi si bl e, we appl y a "cat egor i cal

appr oach. " I d. ( ci t i ng Tayl or v. Uni t ed St at es, 495 U. S. 575

( 1990) ) . Under t hat appr oach, i f t he st at ut e has t he same el ement s

3 The t er m i s def i ned i n Sect i on 2K2. 1 by cr oss - r ef er encet o t he t er m as i t i s used i n Sect i on 4B1. 1, par t of t he car eerof f ender gui del i nes.

4 The def i ni t i on of "cr i me of vi ol ence" i s "near l yi dent i cal " t o t he def i ni t i on of "vi ol ent f el ony" i n t he Ar medCar eer Cr i mi nal Act , so cour t s " consi st ent l y have hel d t hatdeci si ons const r ui ng one of t hese phr ases gener al l y i nf or m t heconst r uct i on of t he ot her . " Ser r ano- Mer cado, 784 F. 3d at 843 n. 4( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks, ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

- 14-


15/24

as t he "gener i c" cr i me as def i ned i n t he gui del i nes, t hen t he pr i or

convi ct i on ser ves as a pr edi cat e of f ense under t he gui del i nes. I d.

I f t he el ement s of t he i ndi vi si bl e st at ut e sweep mor e br oadl y t han

t he gener i c cr i me, t hen t he convi ct i on cannot count as a pr edi cat e

of f ense, "even if t he def endant act ual l y commi t t ed t he of f ense i n

i t s gener i c f or m. " I d. ( emphasi s added) .

I f , but onl y i f , t he s tat ut e i s "di vi s i bl e" that i s , i t

compr i ses mul t i pl e, al t er nat i ve ver si ons of a cr i me not al l of

whi ch qual i f y as a pr edi cat e of f ense t hen we appl y a "modi f i ed"

cat egor i cal appr oach, wher eby a l i mi t ed set of "Shepar d" document s,

such as t he chargi ng document s, pl ea agr eement s, pl ea col l oqui es,

j ury i nst r uct i ons, and ver di ct f or ms, may be consul t ed t o det er mi ne

whi ch of a st at ut e s al t er nat i ve el ement s f or med t he basi s of t he

pr i or convi ct i on. I d. at 228384 ( ci t i ng Shepar d v. Uni t ed St at es,

544 U. S. 13, 17, 2526 ( 2005) ) . However , t he modi f i ed appr oach

"r et ai ns t he cat egor i cal appr oach s cent r al f eat ur e: a f ocus on t he

el ement s, r at her t han t he f act s, of a cr i me. " I d. at 2285.

The di st r i ct cour t di d not at t he t i me of sent enci ng have

t he benef i t of t he Supr eme Cour t s Descamps deci si on. Nonethel ess,

we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t s appr oach may have been

i nconsi st ent wi t h t he Descamps f r amework.

Wi t h r espect t o Cast r o- Vazquez s bur gl ar y convi ct i on,

Cast r o- Vazquez ar gues t hat i t cannot be a "cr i me of vi ol ence"

because bur gl ary under Puer t o Ri co l aw does not have an "unl awf ul

- 15-


16/24

ent r y" r equi r ement as does gener i c bur gl ar y under Sect i on 4B1. 2.

See Tayl or , 495 U. S. at 598. I n t hat r espect , Cast r o- Vazquez

suggest s, t he Puer t o Ri co bur gl ar y st at ut e i s much l i ke t he

Cal i f or ni a one that t he Supr eme Cour t consi der ed i n Descamps, i n

whi ch t he Cour t hel d t hat t he l ack of an unl awf ul ent r y el ement

made t he Cal i f or ni a st atut e over br oad under t he cat egor i cal

appr oach. See 133 S. Ct . at 228586 ( not i ng t he "si mpl e

di scr epancy bet ween gener i c bur gl ar y and t he [ st at e] cr i me" i s t hat

t he " f or mer r equi r es an unl awf ul ent r y al ong t he l i nes of br eaki ng

and ent er i ng") .

The Puer t o Ri co bur gl ar y st at ute st at es t hat i t i s

unl awf ul f or " [ a] ny per son who ent er s a dwel l i ng . . . wi t h t he

pur pose of commi t t i ng any cr i me i nvol vi ng an unl awf ul t aki ng or a

f el ony. " P. R. Laws Ann. Ti t . 33, 4831. The st at ut e i s t hus

i ndi vi si bl e wi t h r espect t o ent r y i t cl ear l y does not cont ai n

mul t i pl e, al t er nat i ve el ement s of separ at e cr i mes wi t h r espect t o

t he t ype of ent r y r equi r ed. 5 See Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2285 &

5 Thi s i s not t o say t he st at ute i s i ndi vi si bl e i n al lr espect s. The "pl ace" el ement of t he st at ut e, f or i nst ance,r eci t es al t er nat i ve pl aces wher e bur gl ar y can occur . See P. R. Laws

Ann. Ti t . 33, 4831. Si mi l ar l y, i n Descamps, t he Cal i f or ni abur gl ar y st at ut e at st ake was i ndi vi si bl e wi t h r espect t o ent r y,133 S. Ct . at 2282, 2285, but al so l i st ed i n t he al t er nat i ve manydi f f er ent pl aces bur gl ar y coul d occur . See Cal . Penal Code Ann. 459 ( West 2010) ( pr ovi di ng t hat a "per son who ent er s" a l i st ofal t er nat i ve l ocat i ons wi t h i nt ent t o commi t cer t ai n cr i mes i sgui l t y of bur gl ar y) .

- 16-


17/24

n. 2. Descamps made i t cl ear t hat t he " f ocus [ i s] on t he el ement s,

r at her t han t he f act s, of a cr i me. " 133 S. Ct . at 2285.

Her e, we ar e concer ned t hat t he di st r i ct cour t s appr oach

was i nconsi st ent wi t h Descamps st r i ct ur e because t he di st r i ct

cour t r el i ed on t he f act ual al l egat i ons of t he pr esent ence r epor t

r at her t han addr essi ng whet her t he Puer t o Ri co bur gl ar y st at ut e

r equi r es unl awf ul ent r y as an el ement of t he of f ense. The

gover nment i n i t s br i ef s on appeal makes no ef f or t t o squar e t he

appr oach bel ow wi t h Descamps appr oach, whi ch r equi r es determi ni ng

whet her t he Puer t o Ri co bur gl ar y st at ut e r equi r es unl awf ul ent r y as

an el ement .

I t i s t r ue, of cour se, t hat pl ai n er r or r evi ew pr esent s

a hi gh bar , and t he f ai l ur e to f ol l ow t he Descamps f r amework woul d

not necessari l y const i t ut e pl ai n er r or . See Ser r ano- Mer cado, 784

F. 3d at 84546. However , as we al so expl ai ned i n Serr ano- Mercado,

t he pl ai n er r or st andard can be over come where there has been

i nt er veni ng l egal aut hor i t y t hat makes cl ear t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t s appr oach was i nconsi st ent wi t h t he i nt er veni ng l egal

aut hor i t y. See Ser r ano- Mer cado, 784 F. 3d at 849; Uni t ed St at es v.

Tor r es- Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d 110, 116 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( hol di ng t hat

di st r i ct cour t commi t s pr ej udi ci al pl ai n er r or i n char act er i zi ng a

convi ct i on as a cr i me of vi ol ence i f , at t he t i me of appeal ,

i nt er veni ng l aw makes cl ear t hat a convi ct i on does not necessar i l y

qual i f y cat egor i cal l y as a cr i me of vi ol ence) ; Hender son v. Uni t ed

- 17-


18/24

St at es, 133 S. Ct . 1121, 112728 ( 2013) ( pl ai n er r or assessed

accor di ng t o l aw at t i me of appeal , even i f pr i or l aw was mer el y

unset t l ed) .

At t he t i me of Cast r o- Vazquez s sent enci ng on March 22,

2013, t he Supreme Cour t had not yet deci ded Descamps ( deci ded J une

20, 2013) . Af t er sent enci ng, Descamps est abl i shed t hat i n t he case

of an i ndi vi si bl e st at ut e, such as t he bur gl ar y st at ut e her e, t he

f act s sur r oundi ng a par t i cul ar pr i or convi ct i on cannot qual i f y i t

as a pr edi cat e of f ense i f t he st at ut e i t sel f sweeps t oo br oadl y.

See Uni t ed St at es v. Fi sh, 758 F. 3d 1, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( not i ng

t hat Descamps "cl ar i f i ed t he or nat e r ul es" of t hi s appr oach, i n

par t i cul ar cl ar i f yi ng t hat "t he onl y way a f aci al l y over br oad

st at ut e can qual i f y as a[ ] . . . pr edi cat e" i s vi a t he modi f i ed

cat egor i cal appr oach i n t he case of di vi si bl e st at ut es) . The l aw

i n t hi s ci r cui t bef or e Descamps was not ent i r el y set t l ed as t o

whet her f act s al l eged i n a pr esent ence repor t coul d be used t o show

a pr i or convi ct i on i s a pr edi cat e of f ense. See Uni t ed St at es v.

McVi car , 907 F. 2d 1, 2 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( r el yi ng on conduct al l eged

i n a pr esent ence r epor t and what r obber y " t ypi cal l y i nvol ves, "

concl udi ng t hat r obber y was a cr i me of vi ol ence) ; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Mar t i nez, 762 F. 3d at 13536 ( not i ng t hat t he st at ement

i n Uni t ed St at es v. Davi s, 676 F. 3d 3, 9 & n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ,

t hat t he f act s r eci t ed i n a pr esent ence r epor t , i f r el i ed on, woul d

"al most cer t ai nl y be suf f i ci ent t o show" har mf ul bat t er y was

- 18-


19/24

" l i kel y no l onger t he cor r ect st andar d" af t er Descamps) . Her e, t he

r ecor d does not show t he di st r i ct cour t made any i nqui r y at al l

i nt o t he el ement s of t he Puer t o Ri co bur gl ar y st at ut e, whi ch i s

enough i n t hese ci r cumst ances t o over come the l i mi t at i ons ot her wi se

i mposed by pl ai n er r or r evi ew. See Tor r es- Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d at

11617.

We addr ess one other argument concer ni ng Cast r o- Vazquez s

bur gl ar y convi ct i on. 6 Cast r o- Vazquez cont ends t hat hi s bur gl ar y

convi ct i on was a mi sdemeanor r ather t han a f el ony puni shabl e by

i mpr i sonment f or over one year , t hus prevent i ng t he convi ct i on f r om

bei ng a pr edi cat e of f ense. See U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1, Appl i cat i on Not e

1 ( def i ni ng " f el ony convi ct i on" f or pur poses of Sect i on 2K2. 1 as

"an of f ense puni shabl e by deat h or i mpr i sonment f or a ter m

exceedi ng one year" ) . Hi s argument seems t o be t hat he was

convi ct ed f or at t empt ed bur gl ar y r at her t han at t empt ed aggr avat ed

bur gl ar y. He ar gues t hat , because t he f or mer i s not an of f ense

puni shabl e under Puert o Ri co l aw wi t h i mpr i sonment f or over one

year , i t i s a mi sdemeanor , whi l e t he l at t er , whi ch i s puni shabl e by

6 Cast r o- Vazquez ar gues i n a f oot not e t hat t he l ocat i onel ement s of t he Puert o Ri co bur gl ar y and aggr avat ed bur gl ar yst at ut es ( r equi r i ng a per son t o ent er "a dwel l i ng, bui l di ng or

ot her const r uct i on or st r uct ur e or i t s dependenci es or annexes, "P. R. Laws Ann. Ti t . 33, 4831, and, i n t he case of aggr avat edbur gl ar y, t hat such ent r y be whi l e t he bui l di ng i s "i nhabi t ed, " i d. 4832) are al so overbr oad. We deem t hese cur sor y argument swai ved. See Nat l For ei gn Tr ade Counci l v. Nat si os, 181 F. 3d 38,60 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( "We have r epeat edl y hel d t hat argument sr ai sed onl y i n a f oot not e or i n a per f unct or y manner ar e wai ved. " ) .

- 19-


20/24

a t er m exceedi ng a year , woul d be a f el ony. See P. R. Laws Ann.

Ti t . 33, 4831 ( bur gl ar y "shal l i ncur a mi sdemeanor " ) ; i d. 4832

( aggr avat ed bur gl ar y "shal l i ncur a t hi r d degr ee f el ony") ; i d.

4644 ( mi sdemeanors puni shabl e by i mpr i sonment f or up t o ni nety

days; t hi r d- degr ee f el oni es puni shabl e by i mpr i sonment bet ween

t hr ee and ei ght year s) . Even i f we wer e t o concl ude t hat any er r or

i n char act er i zi ng t he bur gl ar y convi ct i on as a f el ony wer e not

pl ai n er r or , we t hi nk t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d consi der t hi s i ssue

on r emand. Her e, "we have al r eady concl uded t hat t he j udgment

shoul d be remanded t o cor r ect [ another err or] , and we have br oad

aut hor i t y t o shape a r emand i n t he i nt er est s of j ust i ce. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Mer r i c, 166 F. 3d 406, 412 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( ci t i ng 28

U. S. C. 2106) .

As f or Cast r o- Vazquez s argument s wi t h r espect t o t he

r obber y convi ct i ons, we concl ude agai n t hat a r emand i s r equi r ed i n

t he l i ght of Descamps. Puer t o Ri co s robber y st at ut e cr i mi nal i zes

a per son s "unl awf ul l y t ak[ i ng] per sonal pr oper t y bel ongi ng t o

another i n the i mmedi ate pr esence of sai d person and agai nst

hi s/ her wi l l by means of vi ol ence or i nt i mi dat i on. " P. R. Laws Ann.

Ti t . 33, 4826. Cast r o- Vazquez cont ends t hat nei t her of t he

al t er nat i ve cr i mes est abl i shed by thi s appar ent l y di vi si bl e r obber y

st at ut e cri mi nal i zi ng r obber y ei t her by "vi ol ence" or by

"i nt i mi dat i on" qual i f i es as a cri me of vi ol ence. Accor di ng t o

Cast r o- Vazquez, i nt i mi dat i on i s def i ned under Puer t o Ri co l aw t o

- 20-


21/24

i ncl ude mer e mor al or psychol ogi cal pr essure, and vi ol ence i s

def i ned under Puer t o Ri co l aw t o i ncl ude t he sl i ght est use of

f or ce. Ei t her way, t he pr i or of f ense woul d f al l shor t of t he

gui del i nes requi r ement t hat t he of f ense i ncl ude an el ement of

"physi cal f or ce, " whi ch i s def i ned as "violent f orce t hat i s ,

f or ce capabl e of causi ng physi cal pai n or i nj ur y t o anot her

per son, " Mar t i nez, 762 F. 3d at 133 ( quot i ng J ohnson v. Uni t ed

St at es, 559 U. S. 133, 140 ( 2010) ) ; see al so J ohnson, 559 U. S. at

140 ( "vi ol ent " i n ACCA connot es a "subst ant i al degr ee of f or ce") . 7

Her e, j ust as wi t h t he bur gl ar y convi ct i on, t he di st r i ct cour t made

no i nqui r y at al l i nt o t he el ement s of ei t her t ype of r obber y under

Puer t o Ri co l aw. Thus, gi ven t hat Descamps cl ar i f i ed t hat even t he

"modi f i ed" cat egor i cal appr oach " r et ai ns t he cat egor i cal appr oach' s

cent r al f eat ur e: a f ocus on t he el ement s, r at her t han t he f act s, of

a cr i me, " Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2285, we f ol l ow Tor r es- Rosar i o

i n hol di ng t hat a remand i s r equi r ed t o consi der t hese i ssues i n

t he l i ght of Descamps. I f t he di st r i ct cour t concl udes that onl y

one of t he di vi si bl e cr i mes of t he r obber y stat ut e const i t ut es a

cr i me of vi ol ence, i t wi l l be r equi r ed t o det er mi ne whet her pr oper

7 "Robber y" i s al so l i st ed as an exampl e of a "cr i me ofvi ol ence" i n t he gui del i nes. See U. S. S. G. 4B1. 2, Appl i cat i on

Note 1. That does not change our concl usi on. See Uni t ed St ates v.Rami r ez, 708 F. 3d 295, 302 n. 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( not i ng t hat weappl y t he cat egor i cal appr oach t o deter mi ni ng whet her a pr i orconvi ct i on f al l s wi t hi n a gener i c def i ni t i on of an enumer at edof f ense, i ncl udi ng t hose l i st ed i n appl i cat i on not es ( ci t i ng Uni t edSt at es v. Wal ker , 595 F. 3d 441, 44546 ( 2d Ci r . 2010) ( " r obber y" i nSect i on 4B1. 2, Appl i cat i on Not e 1) ) ) .

- 21-


22/24

Shepar d mat er i al s est abl i sh that Cast r o- Vazquez was convi ct ed of

t hat of f ense. See Tor r es- Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d at 117.

We decl i ne on appeal t o accept t he government s

i nvi t at i on, pr esent ed f or t he f i r st t i me i n i t s Rul e 28( j ) l et t er ,

t o deci de whether unl awf ul ent r y was an el ement of t he Puert o Ri co

bur gl ar y st at ut e, whet her t he bur gl ar y of f ense was a f el ony or

mi sdemeanor , and whether and t o what ext ent vi ol ent physi cal f orce

i s an el ement of bot h di vi si bl e par t s of t he Puer t o Ri co r obber y

st at ut e. See Ruskai v. Pi st ol e, 775 F. 3d 61, 6667 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( Rul e 28( j ) "shoul d not be used t o i nt r oduce new ar gument s" ) . Upon

r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d addr ess i n t he f i r st i nst ance

such quest i ons. I f on r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t concl udes that

t he gui del i nes cal cul at i on was er r oneous and that an enhancement

was not war r ant ed, r esent enci ng wi l l be r equi r ed. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Tavar es, 705 F. 3d 4, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Her e, t her e i s

a "r easonabl e l i kel i hood t hat , but f or t he er r or , t he di st r i ct

cour t woul d have i mposed a di f f er ent , mor e f avor abl e sent ence. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Or t i z, 741 F. 3d 288, 29394 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Tur bi des- Leonar do, 468 F. 3d 34, 39 (1st

Ci r . 2006) ) .

I t r emai ns t o consi der t he r esi dual cl ause i n t he

gui del i nes def i ni t i on of "cr i me of vi ol ence, " al l owi ng a pr i or

convi ct i on t o be a pr edi cat e of f ense wher e i t "ot her wi se i nvol ves

conduct t hat pr esent s a ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y

- 22-


23/24

t o anot her . " U. S. S. G. 4B1. 2( a) . I nt er veni ng aut hor i t y has

cal l ed t he r esi dual cl ause i nt o quest i on. I n J ohnson v. Uni t ed

St ates, 135 S. Ct . 2551 ( 2015) , t he Supr eme Cour t st r uck down a

r esi dual cl ause wi t h i dent i cal l anguage i n t he Ar med Car eer

Cr i mi nal Act ( "ACCA") as unconst i t ut i onal l y vague. See 135 S. Ct .

at 255556, 2560 ( hol di ng t hat t he r esi dual cl ause i n t he ACCA s

def i ni t i on of "vi ol ent f el ony" i s unconst i t ut i onal ) . The st r uctur e

and t he l anguage of t he t wo r esi dual cl auses ar e subst ant i al l y t he

same. See Uni t ed St at es v. Fi sh, 758 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

We do not deci de whet her t he resi dual cl ause of t he gui del i nes

f ai l s under J ohnson. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ti chenor , 683 F. 3d 358,

36365 ( 7t h Ci r . 2012) ( r ej ect i ng vagueness chal l enge to t he "cr i me

of vi ol ence" def i ni t i on because t he gui del i nes ar e mer el y

advi sory) . We hol d onl y t hat i f on r emand t he gover nment r el i es on

t he r esi dual cl ause ( i t has di scl ai med such r el i ance on appeal ) ,

t he const i t ut i onal i ssue must be addr essed.

Moreover , al t hough t he government does not argue on

appeal t hat Cast r o- Vazquez s pr i or dr ug convi ct i ons count as

"cont r ol l ed subst ance of f enses" under Sect i on 4B1. 2( b) of t he

gui del i nes, t hi s shoul d not be t r eat ed as a wai ver , and t he

gover nment , i f i t so chooses, shoul d be per mi t t ed t o at t empt t o

est abl i sh on r emand t hat t hose of f enses qual i f y under t he

gui del i nes as pr edi cat e of f enses. See Tor r es- Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d at

- 23-


24/24

117 ( "On r emand, t he government r emai ns ent i t l ed t o est abl i sh the

ACCA desi gnat i on . . . . ") .

Fi nal l y, whi l e Cast r o- Vazquez al so ar gues on appeal t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abi de by Rul e 32' s r equi r ement t hat t he

cour t "ver i f y" t he def endant " r ead and di scussed" t he pr esent ence

r epor t wi t h hi s counsel , see Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32( i ) ( 1) ( A) , we do

not addr ess t hi s i ssue here, si nce we assume any such potent i al

er r or wi l l be cor r ect ed on r emand. I n addi t i on, Cast r o- Vazquez s

ar gument t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n sent enci ng hi mat t he t op

of t he gui del i nes r ange may become moot i n l i ght of t he remand.

See Ramos- Gonzl ez, 775 F. 3d at 509. We do not now address t he

i ssue.

CONCLUSI ON

We af f i r mCast r o- Vazquez s convi ct i on, but we r emand f or

f ur t her pr oceedi ngs as t o hi s sent ence consi st ent wi t h t hi s

opi ni on.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED.

- 24-

Documents

United States v. Castro-Vazquez, 1st Cir. (2015)