United States v. Serrano-Mercado, 1st Cir. (2015)

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

1/55

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1730

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

WI LSON SERRANO- MERCADO,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Car men Consuel o Cer ezo, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Thompson, Li pez, and Bar r on,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Raul S. Mar i ani - Franco f or appel l ant .Franci sco A. Besosa- Mar t nez, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es

At t or ney, wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, and Nel son Pr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

May 1, 2015


2/55

BARRON, Circuit Judge. Wi l son Ser r ano- Mercado cont ends

t he Di st r i ct Cour t made t wo mi st akes i n sent enci ng hi m f or a

f eder al gun cr i me. Fi r st , he ar gues t he Di st r i ct Cour t err ed i n

count i ng mor e t han one of hi s pr i or convi ct i ons f or Puer t o Ri co

cr i mi nal of f enses as a convi ct i on f or a "cr i me of vi ol ence" under

t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes. Second, he cont ends t he Di st r i ct Cour t

gave too much si gni f i cance under t hose same gui del i nes t o t he

exi st ence of an obl i t er at ed ser i al number on t he f r ame of t he

f i r ear m he was convi ct ed of possessi ng, when t he ser i al number on

t he sl i de was unal t er ed. We hol d t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not commi t

r ever si bl e er r or i n ei t her r espect and t hus af f i r m t he sent ence

i mposed.

I.

I n Di st r i ct Cour t , Ser r ano pl ed gui l t y t o bei ng a f el on

i n knowi ng possessi on of a f i r ear m - - a 9mm pi st ol . 18 U. S. C.

922( g) ( 1) , 924( a) ( 2) . The Sent enci ng Gui del i nes speci f y a

suggest ed sent enci ng r ange f or such a convi ct i on. U. S. S. G.

2K2. 1, 5A. Ser r ano r est s hi s chal l enge t o hi s sent ence on t he

t wo er r or s t hat he cl ai ms t he Di st r i ct Cour t made i n i dent i f yi ng

t he pr oper r ange. And t hus, i t i s hel pf ul t o pr ovi de some

backgr ound about how, i n general , such r anges are i dent i f i ed, and

t hen how, i n par t i cul ar , t he r ange was i dent i f i ed her e.

Under t he gui del i nes, t wo var i abl es pr ovi de the basi s f or

t he sent enci ng r ange. The f i r st var i abl e i s cal l ed t he of f ense

-2-


3/55

l evel . I t i s expr essed i n t er ms of a poi nt scor e. I d. 5A. The

scor e i s a f unct i on, i ni t i al l y, of what i s known as t he base

of f ense l evel . I d. 2 i nt r oduct or y cmt . The base of f ense l evel

i s gener al l y cal cul at ed wi t h r ef er ence t o t he nat ur e of t he cr i me

of convi ct i on. The gui del i nes then add poi nt s t o or subt r act

poi nt s f r om t he base of f ense l evel f or var i ous enhanci ng or

mi t i gat i ng f act or s t hat may or may not be pr esent i n a def endant ' s

case. The r esul t i s t he t ot al of f ense l evel .

The second var i abl e i s a def endant ' s cr i mi nal hi st or y

cat egor y. I d. 5A. The gui del i nes assi gn cr i mi nal sent ences

cer t ai n poi nt val ues. I d. 4A1. 1. These poi nt s ar e t hen

t r ansl at ed i nt o one of si x cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor i es, r epr esent ed

by t he use of a Roman numer al f r om I t o VI . I d. 5A. The mor e

sever e t he cr i mi nal hi st or y a def endant has on t he basi s of t he

poi nt s assi gned, t he hi gher t he cat egor y.

On t he basi s of t hese t wo var i abl es, t he gui del i nes t hen

set f or t h suggest ed sent enci ng r anges i n a char t . I d. One axi s of

t he char t l i st s possi bl e t ot al of f ense l evel s. The ot her axi s

l i st s possi bl e cri mi nal hi st or y cat egor i es. At t he i nt er secti on of

ever y possi bl e val ue f or t hese t wo var i abl es, t he char t set s f or t h

a suggest ed r ange of sentences.

Bef or e act ual l y i mposi ng a sent ence, a di st r i ct cour t

of t en r ecei ves i nput f r omvar i ous act or s about how t o cal cul at e t he

def endant ' s gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange. I f t her e i s a pl ea

-3-


4/55

agr eement , as t here was her e, t he agr eement wi l l of t en r ecommend a

r ange. And, i n set t i ng f or t h t hat r ecommendat i on, t he agr eement

wi l l of t en set f or t h cer t ai n f act s t hat bear on t he cal cul at i on of

t he base of f ense l evel , t he t ot al of f ense l evel , and t he cr i mi nal

hi st or y cat egor y. See Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11( c) ( 1) .

The di st r i ct cour t wi l l al so have t he benef i t - - as,

agai n, was t r ue her e - - of a pr obat i on of f i cer ' s pr e- sent ence

r epor t , whi ch i s based on t hat of f i cer ' s i nvest i gat i on. That

r epor t , t oo, wi l l set f or t h f act s bear i ng on t he sent enci ng

gui del i nes cal cul at i on. And t hat r epor t may, i n l i ght of t hose

f act s, suggest a cal cul at i on di f f er ent f r om t he pl ea agr eement .

See Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32( d) .

The di st r i ct cour t need not accept t he cal cul at i ons i n

t he pl ea agr eement or t he pr e- sent ence r eport . Nor must t he

di st r i ct cour t choose a sent ence t hat f al l s wi t hi n t he r ange t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s own gui del i nes cal cul at i on yi el ds, t hough t he

sent ence must compl y wi t h addi t i onal subst ant i ve and pr ocedur al

l i mi t at i ons. See 18 U. S. C. 3553; Uni t ed St at es v. Booker , 543

U. S. 220, 245, 261 ( 2005) . But i f t he di st r i ct cour t er r s i n

maki ng t he gui del i nes cal cul at i on, t he sent ence may be rever sed

even though t hat cal cul at i on does not di r ect l y compel t he sent ence.

See Gal l v. Uni t ed St at es, 552 U. S. 38, 51 ( 2007) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Tavares, 705 F. 3d 4, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . And t hat i s what Ser r ano

ar gues must happen here.

-4-


5/55

I n thi s case, t he pl ea agr eement r ecommended a sent enci ng

r ange t i ed t o a base of f ense l evel of 22. The agr eement made t hat

cal cul at i on because i t st at ed t hat Ser r ano had been convi ct ed of

one pr i or f el ony f or a "cr i me of vi ol ence" at t he t i me of hi s

unl awf ul f i r ear m possessi on. U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1( a) ( 3) , 4B1. 2( a) .

The pl ea agr eement di d not i dent i f y any of Ser r ano' s pr i or

convi ct i ons. The pl ea agr eement t hus di d not speci f y whi ch one

qual i f i ed as t he cr i me of vi ol ence t hat war r ant ed t hat base of f ense

l evel of 22. The pl ea agr eement ' s cal cul at i on al so di d not i ncl ude

a f our - poi nt i ncr ease under t he gui del i nes' enhancement t hat

appl i es when t he f i r ear m i nvol ved i n a f el on- i n- possessi on char ge

has "an al t er ed or obl i t er at ed ser i al number . " I d. 2K2. 1( b) ( 4) . 1

The probat i on of f i cer ' s pre- sent ence r epor t , as amended,

depar t ed f r omt he pl ea agr eement ' s gui del i nes cal cul at i on. And i t

di d so i n t wo r espect s.

Fi r st , t he amended pr e- sent ence r epor t suggest ed a base

of f ense l evel of 24, r at her t han 22. The r epor t used t hat hi gher

base of f ense l evel because i t st at ed t hat Ser r ano act ual l y had mor e

t han one pr i or f el ony convi ct i on f or a "cr i me of vi ol ence. " I d.

2K2. 1( a) ( 2) , 4B1. 2( a) . The r epor t di d not expr essl y i dent i f y

whi ch of Ser r ano' s pr i or convi ct i ons qual i f i ed as a cr i me of

1 The pl ea agr eement al so i ncl uded a cl ause wai vi ng Serr ano' sappeal r i ght s, but onl y i f t he cour t accept ed t he pl ea' s sent enci ngr ecommendat i on. Because t he court di d not , t he government concedest hat t he pl ea agr eement ' s appeal wai ver does not appl y.

-5-


6/55

vi ol ence. The r epor t t hus di d not i dent i f y t he ones the r epor t

r el i ed upon i n set t i ng t he base of f ense l evel at 24.

The r epor t di d l i st , however , a number of pr i or

convi ct i ons f or Ser r ano. These convi ct i ons i ncl uded a 2006 Puer t o

Ri co convi ct i on f or assaul t t hat t he par t i es bot h appear t o agr ee

does qual i f y as a convi ct i on f or a cr i me of vi ol ence. These

convi ct i ons al so i ncl uded a 2005 Puer t o Ri co convi ct i on under

Ar t i cl e 3. 1 of Law 54, Puer t o Ri co' s Domest i c Abuse Pr event i on and

I nt er vent i on Act , P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 8, 631, whi ch t he

government on appeal now cont ends al so qual i f i es but whi ch Serr ano

ar gues does not . And, f i nal l y, t he l i st i ncl uded an ear l i er 2004

convi ct i on t hat t he gover nment does not ar gue qual i f i es.

The second r espect i n whi ch t he pre- sentence r epor t

di f f er ed f r om t he pl ea agr eement concer ned t he ser i al - number

enhancement . Unl i ke t he pl ea agr eement , t he r epor t concl uded t he

enhancement di d appl y. The r epor t t hus i ncr eased i t s cal cul at i on

of t he t ot al of f ense l evel by f our poi nt s. U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1( b) ( 4) .

The Di st r i ct Court adopt ed t he pre- sent ence r epor t ' s

r ecommendat i ons r egar di ng t he gui del i nes cal cul at i on. The Di st r i ct

Cour t st ated Serr ano had " t wo domest i c vi ol ence convi ct i ons and one

assaul t convi ct i on whi ch meet t he gui del i nes cr i t er i a f or cr i mes of

vi ol ence. " The Di st r i ct Cour t t hus st ar t ed f r om a base of f ense

l evel of 24 because i t had f ound, cont r ar y to t he r epr esent at i on i n

t he pl ea agr eement , t hat Ser r ano had been convi ct ed of more than

-6-


7/55

one of f ense t hat qual i f i ed as a cr i me of vi ol ence. The Di st r i ct

Cour t t hen appl i ed t he f our - poi nt ser i al - number enhancement .

Fi nal l y, and consi st ent wi t h t he pl ea agr eement and t he pr e-

sent ence r epor t , t he Di st r i ct Cour t subt r act ed t hr ee poi nt s f or t he

def endant ' s accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y, U. S. S. G. 3E1. 1 cmt . 3,

due t o t he pl ea.

The Di st r i ct Cour t t hus ar r i ved at a t ot al of f ense l evel

of 25. The Di st r i ct Cour t al so det er mi ned Ser r ano had a cr i mi nal

hi st or y cat egor y of V. These cal cul at i ons t hen combi ned t o set

Ser r ano' s gui del i nes sentenci ng r ange between 100 and 125 mont hs.

The Di st r i ct Cour t i mposed a sent ence at t he l ower bound of t hat

r ange: 100 mont hs.

On appeal , Ser r ano ar gues f or t he f i r st t i me t hat hi s

base of f ense l evel shoul d have been 22, not 24. 2 He contends t hat

2 Ser r ano ar gues on appeal t hat he r ai sed an obj ect i on bel ow,but we concl ude ot her wi se. Ser r ano di d obj ect t o t he f i r st pr e-sent ence r epor t ' s " t ot al adj ust ed of f ense l evel [ of ] 23 when t hepl ea agr eement est abl i shes a t ot al of f ense l evel of 19. " Butnot hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat t hi s gener al obj ect i on t o t heunamended pr e- sent ence r epor t ' s t ot al of f ense l evel was anobj ect i on t o count i ng t he 2005 f el ony under Ar t i cl e 3. 1 - - or anyot her pr i or of f ense - - as an addi t i onal cr i me of vi ol ence f orpur poses of det er mi ni ng t he base of f ense l evel . I ndeed, t he pr e-sent ence r epor t ' s addendum r el at es t hat when, f ol l owi ng Ser r ano' sl odgi ng t hat gener al obj ect i on, t he pr obat i on of f i cer expl ai ned hi s

vi ew t hat Ser r ano had t wo pr i or convi ct i ons f or cr i mes of vi ol ence,Ser r ano di d not of f er an obj ect i on or cont r ar y ar gument . And,f i nal l y, Ser r ano di d not obj ect when t he Di st r i ct Cour t st at ed atsent enci ng t hat i t was appl yi ng t he base of f ense l evel of 24because Ser r ano had at l east t wo pr i or convi ct i ons f or a cr i me ofvi ol ence, i ncl udi ng not onl y one f or assaul t but t wo f or domest i cvi ol ence.

-7-


8/55

t he l ower base of f ense l evel i s t he r i ght one because hi s 2006

f el ony convi ct i on f or assaul t i s t he onl y one of hi s pr i or

convi ct i ons t hat qual i f i es as a cr i me of vi ol ence under t he

gui del i nes. Ser r ano al so ar gues, as he di d bel ow, t hat t he ser i al -

number enhancement cannot appl y because even though one ser i al

number on t he gun' s f r ame was obl i t erated, another ser i al number on

t he sl i de r emai ned unal t er ed. For t hat r eason, he cont ends t he

Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n addi ng f our poi nt s t o hi s t ot al of f ense

l evel . 3

I f t he Di st r i ct Cour t had used a base of f ense l evel of 22

and had not appl i ed the ser i al - number enhancement , t hen, af t er t he

deduct i on f or accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y, Ser r ano' s t ot al of f ense

l evel woul d have been 19. Wi t h hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of V,

hi s gui del i nes sent enci ng range woul d have been 57 t o 71 mont hs i n

pr i son. U. S. S. G. 5A. Under t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s act ual

gui del i ne cal cul at i on, by cont r ast , t he r ange was 100- t o 125-

mont hs.

3 Ser r ano' s openi ng br i ef r ef er enced a t hi r d pot ent i al gr oundf or chal l engi ng t he sent ence: i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel .But Ser r ano r ai sed t hi s argument onl y i n t he st at ement of i ssues onappeal and di d not advance the ar gument i n t he body of t he br i ef .Hi s r epl y br i ef made cl ear t hat t he i nef f ect i ve- assi st ance ar gumentwas er r oneousl y added t o t he st at ement of i ssues i n t he f i r stbr i ef . We t hus do not addr ess i t f ur t her .

-8-


9/55

II.

Ser r ano' s f i r st chal l enge i s t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

concl usi on t hat hi s base of f ense l evel was 24 because he had t wo

pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons t hat count ed under t he gui del i nes as

convi ct i ons f or a "cr i me of vi ol ence. " We st ar t by descr i bi ng how

we usual l y deci de whet her a pr i or convi ct i on i s f or a cr i me of

vi ol ence. We t hen expl ai n t he pr obl em wi t h usi ng t hat same

appr oach her e, gi ven Ser r ano' s f ai l ur e t o pr eserve t he ar gument by

pr oper l y r ai si ng i t bel ow.

A.

Or di nar i l y, we use what t he pr ecedent s cal l a

"cat egor i cal appr oach" t o deci de i f a def endant ' s pr i or f el ony

convi ct i on was f or a cr i me of vi ol ence. Uni t ed St at es v. J onas,

689 F. 3d 83, 86 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Under t hi s appr oach, t he

convi ct i on count s as one f or a cr i me of vi ol ence i f t he el ement s of

t he convi ct i on f i t t he gui del i nes' def i ni t i on of a cri me of

vi ol ence. I d. at 86- 87. Ot her wi se, t he convi ct i on does not count ,

no mat t er what t he f act s show t he def endant act ual l y di d i n

commi t t i ng t he cr i me - - even, t hat i s, i f t hose f act s show he act ed

vi ol ent l y. I d. at 86.

Thi s f ocus on t he el ements of t he convi ct i on - - r at her

t han t he under l yi ng conduct - - f i t s wi t h t he t ext of t he Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes, whi ch makes t he base of f ense l evel f or t he f el on- i n-

possessi on of f ense t ur n on pr i or "convi ct i ons of . . . a cr i me of

-9-


10/55

vi ol ence, " not on pr i or conduct . U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1( a) ( 2) , ( 3)

( emphasi s added) ; see Descamps v. Uni t ed St ates, 133 S. Ct . 2276,

2287 ( 2013) . And t hi s appr oach al so ensures pr esent sent ences are

not based on document s t hat coul d be qui t e ol d, mi ght be uncer t ai n

or di sput ed, and may cont ai n f act ual al l egat i ons t he def endant di d

not cont est at t he t i me f or any of a number of r easons unr el at ed t o

t he accur acy of t he al l egat i ons. Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2289.

I n some cases, t hough, t hi s cat egor i cal appr oach r uns

i nt o a pot ent i al obst acl e. That obst acl e ar i ses when t he

convi ct i on i s f or a cri me set f or t h i n a st at ut e t hat i s

"di vi si bl e. " A di vi si bl e st at ut e i s one t hat "set s out one or

mor e el ement s of t he of f ense i n t he al t er nat i ve - - f or exampl e,

st at i ng t hat bur gl ar y i nvol ves ent r y i nt o a bui l di ng or an

aut omobi l e. " I d. at 2281. The pr obl em such a st at ut e poses i s

t hat t hese al t er nat i ve el ement s may creat e di st i nct of f enses, each

of whi ch may or may not i t sel f be a cr i me of vi ol ence.

To deal wi t h t hi s wr i nkl e, we empl oy what t he precedent s

cal l - - not sur pr i si ngl y - - a "modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach. "

Under t hi s appr oach, we l ook to l i mi t ed mat er i al s, of t en cal l ed

Shepar d document s, f r om t he convi ct i ng cour t , such as char gi ng

document s, pl ea agr eement s, pl ea col l oqui es, and j ur y i nst r uct i ons.

I d. at 2281, 2284 ( r el yi ng on Shepar d v. Uni t ed St at es, 544 U. S. 13

( 2005) ) . We do so not t o determi ne t he conduct t he def endant

engaged i n whi l e commi t t i ng an of f ense, as such conduct i s of no

-10-


11/55

r el evance. We i nst ead i nspect t hese mat er i al s i n or der t o i dent i f y

( i f such i dent i f i cat i on i s possi bl e) t he actual of f ense of

convi ct i on f r om among t he di st i nct of f enses set f or t h i n a

di vi si bl e st at ut e. I d. at 2281.

Once we i dent i f y t he di st i nct of f ense of convi ct i on by

consul t i ng t he mat er i al s, we then r et ur n t o t he cat egor i cal

appr oach. We consi der whet her t he el ement s of t hat di st i nct

of f ense meet t he def i ni t i on of a "cr i me of vi ol ence. "

Al l of whi ch br i ngs us t o t he f i nal st age i n t hi s

pr ocess: t he anal ysi s of how t he el ement s of t he of f ense of

convi ct i on mat ch up wi t h t he gui del i nes' def i ni t i on of a "cr i me of

vi ol ence. " A convi ct i on f or an of f ense qual i f i es as a convi ct i on

f or a cr i me of vi ol ence i f t he el ement s of t he under l yi ng of f ense

sat i sf y ei t her ( or bot h) of t wo cl auses set f or t h i n t he r el evant

gui del i ne and t hat of f ense i s puni shabl e by mor e t han a year i n

pr i son. U. S. S. G. 4B1. 2( a) ; see al so U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1 cmt . 1

( cr oss- r ef er enci ng t he def i ni t i on i n 4B1. 2 t o det er mi ne t he base

of f ense l evel of t he f el on- i n- possessi on cr i me) . 4

The gui del i ne' s f i r st cl ause provi des t hat a cr i me of

vi ol ence i s "any of f ense under f eder al or st at e l aw . . . t hat

4 "Thi s def i ni t i on i s near l y i dent i cal t o t he def i ni t i on ofa ' vi ol ent f el ony' cont ai ned i n t he Ar med Car eer Cr i mi nal Act( ACCA) , 18 U. S. C. 924( e) ( 2) ( B) . Recogni zi ng t hi s r esembl ance,cour t s consi st ent l y have hel d t hat deci si ons const r ui ng one oft hese phr ases gener al l y i nf or m t he const r uct i on of t he ot her . "J onas, 689 F. 3d at 86.

-11-


12/55

. . . has as an el ement t he use, at t empt ed use, or t hr eat ened use

of physi cal f or ce agai nst t he per son of anot her . " U. S. S. G.

4B1. 2( a) ( 1) . Thi s so- cal l ed "f or ce cl ause" r equi r es t hat t he

of f ense of convi ct i on i ncl ude as an el ement "vi ol ent f or ce, " 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. " J ohnson v. Uni t ed St at es, 559 U. S. 133, 140 ( 2010) . I f

t he of f ense of convi ct i on does not i nvol ve t he "use, at t empt ed use,

or t hr eat ened use" of such vi ol ent physi cal f or ce - - as may be t he

case wi t h an of f ense of common- l aw bat t ery, whose f orce el ement can

"be sat i sf i ed by even t he sl i ght est of f ensi ve t ouchi ng" - - t hen

t hat of f ense does not meet t he r equi r ement s of t he f or ce cl ause.

I d. at 139.

The gui del i ne' s second cl ause provi des t hat a pr i or

f el ony convi cti on qual i f i es as a cri me of vi ol ence i f i t i s f or

"any of f ense under f eder al or st at e l aw . . . t hat . . . 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 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 t o anot her . " U. S. S. G.

4B1. 2( a) ( 2) . Even i f an of f ense does not f al l under t he f or ce

cl ause, t her ef or e, t hat of f ense qual i f i es as a cri me of vi ol ence i f

i t mat ches one of t hese enumer at ed cr i mes or ot her wi se sat i sf i es

t he r equi r ement s of t he gui del i ne' s so- cal l ed "r esi dual cl ause. "

-12-


13/55

B.

I n appl yi ng t hi s f r amewor k, we begi n by not i ng t he

par t i es agr ee t hat Ser r ano' s 2006 convi ct i on f or assaul t under

Puer t o Ri co l aw does count as a convi ct i on f or a cr i me of vi ol ence.

We al so not e that Ser r ano does not di sput e t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t

count ed t he 2005 convi ct i on f or domest i c vi ol ence under Ar t i cl e 3. 1

i n f i ndi ng t hat Ser r ano had mor e than one convi ct i on f or a cr i me of

vi ol ence. Ser r ano' s chal l enge t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s use of t he

base of f ense l evel of 24 can succeed, t her ef or e, onl y i f Ser r ano

can show t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n count i ng t hat Ar t i cl e 3. 1

convi ct i on. Ot her wi se, t her e woul d be at l east t wo such qual i f yi ng

convi ct i ons. We t hus now t ur n t o t he pr opr i et y of t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s f i ndi ng on t hat poi nt .

The f i r st t hi ng t o not e i s t hat Ar t i cl e 3. 1 i s a

di vi si bl e st at ut e. I t cover s " [ a] ny per son who empl oys physi cal

f or ce or psychol ogi cal abuse, i nt i mi dat i on or per secut i on agai nst

t he per son of [ a domest i c par t ner ] . . . t o cause physi cal har m t o

t he per son, t he pr oper t y hel d i n est eem by hi m/ her , . . . or t o

anot her ' s per son, or t o cause gr ave emot i onal har m . . . . " P. R.

Laws Ann. t i t . 8, 631 ( emphasi s added) . The st at ut e t hus set s

out mul t i pl e const el l at i ons of el ement s i n t he al t er nat i ve. One

set of el ement s r equi r es t he use or t hr eat of "physi cal f or ce. "

The ot her s r equi r e "psychol ogi cal abuse, i nt i mi dat i on or

per secut i on. "

-13-


14/55

Faced wi t h such a st at ut e, we or di nar i l y woul d appl y t he

modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach. Usi ng t hat appr oach, we f i r st woul d

t r y t o det er mi ne, f r om t he rel evant document s, whet her Ser r ano' s

pr i or convi ct i on under Ar t i cl e 3. 1 was f or an of f ense pr edi cat ed on

t he "physi cal f or ce" el ement or i nst ead f or an of f ense pr edi cat ed

on t he ot her el ement s set f or t h i n t hat s t at ut e. Then, af t er

havi ng i dent i f i ed t he act ual of f ense of convi ct i on, we woul d

det er mi ne whet her t hat of f ense met t he gui del i ne' s r equi r ement s f or

a cr i me of vi ol ence.

But we are f r ust r ated i n doi ng so here. Ser r ano made no

speci f i c chal l enge to t he pr e- sent ence r epor t ' s cont ent i on t hat t he

l i st of hi s pr i or convi ct i ons i ncl uded t wo f el oni es t hat wer e f or

a cr i me of vi ol ence. That was so even t hough t hat l i st i ncl uded a

convi ct i on under Ar t i cl e 3. 1 but di d not speci f y f ur t her t he

par t i cul ar of f ense under t hat l aw t hat had r esul t ed i n t hat

convi ct i on. At sent enci ng, mor eover , t he Di st r i ct Cour t si mpl y

i dent i f i ed as qual i f yi ng convi ct i ons t he one f or assaul t and t he

t wo f or domest i c vi ol ence. Yet Ser r ano di d not compl ai n t hat t he

Di st r i ct Cour t , i n so f i ndi ng, di d not consul t t he l i mi t ed set of

document s f r om t he cour t of convi ct i on t hat woul d have hel ped i t

det er mi ne t he di st i nct el ement s of t he of f ense that pr ovi ded t he

basi s f or Ser r ano' s act ual 2005 convi ct i on under Ar t i cl e 3. 1. I n

consequence, we have no such document s t o revi ew as par t of t he

r ecor d on appeal .

-14-


15/55

As a l egal mat t er , mor eover , Ser r ano' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect

i n t he Di st r i ct Cour t af f ect s t he st andar d of r evi ew. Rat her t han

r evi ewi ng de novo whet her t he convi ct i on under Ar t i cl e 3. 1 count s

as a convi ct i on f or a cr i me of vi ol ence, see J onas, 689 F. 3d at 86,

we may revi ew onl y f or pl ai n er r or , Uni t ed St at es v.

R os- Her nndez, 645 F. 3d 456, 462 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . And t hat

standar d i s st r i ct . Ser r ano can sat i sf y i t " i f , and onl y i f , [ he]

succeeds i n showi ng ' ( 1) t hat an er r or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch was cl ear

or obvi ous and whi ch not onl y ( 3) af f ect ed t he def endant ' 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. Padi l l a, 415 F. 3d 211, 218 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( quot i ng

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

Of cour se, i f i t wer e cl ear or obvi ous t hat none of

Ser r ano' s pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons - - save f or t he 2006 one f or

assaul t - - coul d qual i f y as one f or a cr i me of vi ol ence, t hen t he

def endant ' s t ask on appeal mi ght not be so daunt i ng, despi t e the

st r i ct st andar d of r evi ew. But because Ser r ano was convi ct ed under

Ar t i cl e 3. 1, and Ar t i cl e 3. 1 i s a di vi si bl e st at ut e, we coul d come

t o t hat concl usi on onl y i f we wer e conf i dent t hat none of t he

di st i nct of f enses set f or t h i n t hat l aw woul d so qual i f y. And, as

we now expl ai n, we ar e not of t hat vi ew, gi ven how we i nt erpr et one

por t i on of Ar t i cl e 3. 1.

-15-


16/55

C.

The case f or concl udi ng t hat at l east one of f ense under

Ar t i cl e 3. 1 qual i f i es as a cr i me of vi ol ence i s st r ong. Among t he

di vi si bl e of f enses set f or t h i n t hat st at ut e i s one t hat cover s

" [ a] ny per son who empl oys physi cal f or ce . . . t o cause physi cal

har m" t o a pr ot ect ed per son. P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 8, 631.

I n maki ng physi cal f or ce an el ement , t he t ext of Ar t i cl e

3. 1 suggest s t hat somet hi ng more t han a mere non- consensual

t ouchi ng i s requi r ed t o sat i sf y t hat el ement . I nst ead, t he t ext

r equi r es t he physi cal f or ce be i nt ended t o "cause physi cal har m. "

The Puer t o Ri co Supreme Cour t has al so i nter pret ed t he physi cal -

f or ce el ement of Ar t i cl e 3. 1. And consi st ent wi t h t he t ext , t hat

cour t has const r ued t hat el ement t o "pr ohi bi t [ ] . . . physi cal

abuse, " Puebl o v. Ayal a Gar c a, 186 P. R. Dec. 196, 213 ( 2012)

( t r ansl at i on pr ovi ded by st i pul at i on of par t i es t hr ough l et t er

under Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 28( j ) ) , and st at ed t hat

"any degr ee of f or ce i s suf f i ci ent t o conf i gur e t he of f ense i f

. . . empl oyed wi t h t he i nt ent i on of causi ng some damage, " i d. ; see

al so Puebl o v. Rol dn Lpez, 158 P. R. Dec. 54, 61 ( 2002) .

Taken t oget her , t he t ext of Ar t i cl e 3. 1 and t he Puer t o

Ri co Supr eme Cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i on of i t st r ongl y suggest t he

st at ut e' s physi cal - f or ce el ement i nvol ves t he ki nd of vi ol ent f or ce

"capabl e of causi ng physi cal pai n or i nj ur y t o anot her per son. "

-16-


17/55

J ohnson, 559 U. S. at 140. 5 And t hat i s t he ki nd of f or ce r equi r ed

by t he cr i me of vi ol ence sent enci ng gui del i nes' f or ce cl ause. I d.

To t he ext ent any uncer t ai nt y r emai ns, mor eover , we do

not bel i eve i t i s so gr eat as t o make i t cl ear or obvi ous t hat t he

physi cal - f or ce of f ense set f or t h i n Ar t i cl e 3. 1 coul d not qual i f y

as a cr i me of vi ol ence under t he gui del i ne. Yet i t i s j ust such a

cl ear or obvi ous excl usi on f r om t he gui del i ne that Ser r ano must

demonst r at e gi ven t hat our r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or .

Ser r ano ar gues, however , t hat he st i l l shoul d wi n because

i t i s at l east possi bl e he was convi ct ed of an of f ense under

Ar t i cl e 3. 1 t hat does not qual i f y as a cr i me of vi ol ence. And t hat

i s because, he cont ends, t hat st at ut e i s di vi si bl e and t he el ement s

of "psychol ogi cal abuse, i nt i mi dat i on or per secut i on" pl ai nl y do

not set f or t h an of f ense t hat i s a cr i me of vi ol ence.

Ser r ano r est s t hat f al l - back cont ent i on on mor e t han hi s

asser t i on t hat t hose par t i cul ar el ement s, by t hei r pl ai n t er ms, do

not r equi r e "physi cal f or ce" or a t hr eat of such f or ce. He al so

ar gues t hose el ement s est abl i sh di st i nct of f enses t hat ar e t oo

unl i ke t he ot her cr i mes enumer at ed i n t he r esi dual cl ause of t he

5 We t hus need not addr ess whether t he physi cal - f orce of f ensequal i f i es as a cr i me of vi ol ence under t he gui del i ne' s r esi dual

cl ause, whi ch sweeps i n of f enses t hat " i nvol ve[ ] conduct t hatpr esent s a ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y t o anot her . "U. S. S. G. 4B1. 2( a) ( 2) . We note t hat t he Supr eme Cour t hasr ecent l y asked f or br i ef i ng on t he quest i on whet her i dent i call anguage i n a di st i nct cr i mi nal st at ut e, t he Ar med Car eer Cr i mi nalAct, 18 U. S. C. 924( e) ( 2) ( B) ( i i ) , i s unconst i t ut i onal l y vague.J ohnson v. Uni t ed Stat es, 135 S. Ct . 939 ( 2015) .

-17-


18/55

cr i me of vi ol ence gui del i ne t o be swept up by i t . Cf . Begay v.

Uni t ed St at es, 553 U. S. 137, 142 ( 2008) ( hol di ng t hat t he

enumer at ed cr i mes pr ecedi ng t he r esi dual cl ause " i l l ust r at e t he

ki nds of cr i mes t hat f al l wi t hi n t he st at ut e' s scope" and

"i ndi cat e[ ] t hat t he st at ut e cover s onl y si mi l ar cr i mes") . Ser r ano

t hen cl oses out t hi s ar gument by cont endi ng t hat , wi t hout document s

t hat show whi ch el ement s i n Ar t i cl e 3. 1 suppor t ed hi s actual

convi ct i on under t hat l aw, t here i s no way t o know whether t hat

convi ct i on qual i f i es as one f or a cr i me of vi ol ence. And, i n t he

f ace of t hat cl ai med uncer t ai nt y, he ar gues, i t i s pl ai n er r or t o

hol d t hat he was convi ct ed of such a qual i f yi ng cr i me.

The government r esponds by ar gui ng t hat uncer t ai nt y about

what such document s mi ght show i s besi de t he poi nt . The government

ar gues t hat , i n f act, al l of f enses descr i bed i n Ar t i cl e 3. 1 ar e

cr i mes of vi ol ence, or , at l east , t hat we shoul d vi ew t hemas such

on r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or . And t he gover nment bases t hat

cont ent i on on t he r esi dual cl ause of t he cr i me of vi ol ence

gui del i ne, whi ch, t he gover nment cont ends, encompasses al l of t hose

of f enses. Or , at l east , t he gover nment cont ends, t he r esi dual

cl ause of t he gui del i ne does not cl ear l y or obvi ousl y excl ude t hem,

whet her t hey i ncl ude the physi cal - f or ce el ement or not .

But we do not need t o r esol ve t hi s di sput e over how t o

char act er i ze al l par t s of Ar t i cl e 3. 1. Because our r evi ew i s onl y

f or pl ai n er r or , i t i s enough t hat we have det er mi ned t hat a

-18-


19/55

convi ct i on under t he physi cal - f or ce el ement of Ar t i cl e 3. 1 woul d

l i kel y qual i f y as a cr i me of vi ol ence. For as we next expl ai n, our

pr ecedent s show t hat Ser r ano may not benef i t f r om havi ng l ef t us

compl et el y i n t he dar k ( t hr ough hi s f ai l ur e t o obj ect bel ow) about

what t he document s r el at i ng t o t he convi ct i on under Ar t i cl e 3. 1

woul d reveal about whether he was convi ct ed of an of f ense t hat

cont ai ns t he physi cal - f or ce el ement or i nst ead some ot her of f ense

t hat does not r equi r e pr oof of t hat el ement .

D.

We conf r ont ed a si t uat i on ver y much l i ke t hi s i n Uni t ed

St at es v. Tur bi des- Leonar do, 468 F. 3d 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Ther e,

t he def endant al so chal l enged hi s sent ence on appeal because i t

r est ed i n par t on a convi ct i on under a di vi si bl e st at ut e, one

por t i on of whi ch cont ai ned el ement s t hat qual i f i ed f or a gui del i ne

enhancement - - t her e, f or dr ug t r af f i cki ng - - and anot her of whi ch

di d not . I d. at 37. And t her e, t oo, t he def endant had not

chal l enged ei t her t he pr e- sent ence r epor t ' s char act er i zat i on t hat

t he convi ct i on was f or an enhancement - qual i f yi ng of f ense, or t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s gui del i ne cal cul at i on t hat t r acked t he pr e-

sent ence r epor t . As a r esul t , t her e wer e no r ecor ds avai l abl e on

appeal t o show whi ch of t he di vi si bl e st at ut e' s di st i nct of f enses

was i n f act t he of f ense of convi ct i on. I d. at 40.

Af t er f i ndi ng t he def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect bel ow, i n

cont ext , actual l y const i t ut ed wai ver , i d. at 38 - - a cl ai mt hat t he

-19-


20/55

government does not advance here - - we went on t o consi der i n di ct a

whet her t he appl i cat i on of t he dr ug- t r af f i cki ng gui del i ne

enhancement shoul d be r eversed under t he pl ai n err or st andard, i d.

at 38- 40. And we concl uded i t shoul d not . I d. We expl ai ned t he

Di st r i ct Cour t commi t t ed no er r or i n accept i ng t he unchal l enged

char acter i zat i on, but t hat , even i f t he Di st r i ct Cour t had er r ed i n

doi ng so, r ever sal was st i l l not j ust i f i ed. I d.

I n consequence of t he def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect

bel ow, we expl ai ned, "we [ we] r e l ef t t o guess" t he "unknown

var i abl e" of "t he cont ent s of t he r ecor d of t he pr i or convi ct i on. "

I d. at 40. And because we were l ef t t o guess, " t here [ wa] s no way

f or t he appel l ant t o show a reasonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat he woul d be

bet t er of f f r oma sent enci ng st andpoi nt had t he di st r i ct cour t not

commi t t ed t he cl ai med . . . er r or . " I d. For t hat r eason, we

concl uded t he def endant coul d not meet t he hei ght ened pr ej udi ce

showi ng pl ai n er r or revi ew r equi r es. I d.

We t hen r el i ed on Tur bi des- Leonar do' s r easoni ng i n

hol di ng t her e t o be no pr ej udi ce i n Uni t ed St at es v. Davi s, 676

F. 3d 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , our l ast bi ndi ng pr ecedent on t he i ssue.

I n Davi s, t he def endant chal l enged hi s sent ence as r el yi ng on a

pr i or convi ct i on under a di vi si bl e assaul t st at ut e, one por t i on of

whi ch def i ned a cr i me of vi ol ence and anot her por t i on of whi ch di d

not . I d. at 7- 8. Davi s di d not obj ect when t he pr osecut or and t he

pr e- sent ence r epor t char act er i zed hi s convi ct i on as qual i f yi ng as

-20-


21/55

a cr i me of vi ol ence, nor di d he obj ect when t he Di st r i ct Cour t

char acter i zed t he convi ct i on si mi l ar l y and r el i ed on i t i n craf t i ng

t he sent ence. I d. at 5- 6. And so we r evi ewed onl y f or pl ai n

error.

We hel d t hat , whet her or not t he Di st r i ct Cour t cl ear l y

er r ed by not demandi ng the document s of convi ct i on bef ore maki ng

t he cr i me- of - vi ol ence det er mi nat i on, t he def endant bor e t he bur den

of showi ng "a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y that , 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. " I d. at 10 ( quot i ng Tur bi desLeonar do, 468 F. 3d at 39) .

We t hen hel d, r el yi ng expr essl y on Tur bi des- Leonar do' s r easoni ng

about t he need t o show pr ej udi ce, t hat t he def endant di d not

sat i sf y t hat bur den because he f ai l ed t o poi nt t o any r eason t o

concl ude that an exami nat i on of t he document s woul d i ndi cate t he

convi ct i on was f or an of f ense t hat does not qual i f y as a cr i me of

vi ol ence. I d.

Her e, j ust l i ke i n Davi s, t he Di st r i ct Cour t had bef or e

i t a pr e- sent ence repor t t hat cl ai med t he def endant had a second

pr i or convi ct i on t hat qual i f i ed f or t he gui del i ne enhancement . And

yet , agai n, l i ke i n Davi s, t he def endant di d not cont est t hat

r epr esent at i on, even t hough t he def endant i nf ormed t he j udge

t hr ough counsel t hat he had r evi ewed t he pr e- sent ence report

cont ai ni ng t hat i nf or mat i on.

-21-


22/55

I ndeed, al t hough t he def endant made a general obj ect i on

t o t he pr obat i on of f i ce r egar di ng t he t ot al of f ense l evel used i n

t he f i r st ver si on of t he pr e- sent ence r epor t , t he r ecor d does not

i ndi cat e t hat Ser r ano r ai sed a mor e speci f i c obj ect i on t o t he

pr obat i on of f i ce r egar di ng t he base of f ense l evel and t he number of

hi s pr i or convi ct i ons f or a cr i me of vi ol ence. And, t he r ecor d

f ur t her shows, he f ai l ed t o do so even af t er t he of f i ce cl ear l y

expl ai ned i t s vi ew t hat Ser r ano had t wo such pr i or convi ct i ons.

Nor di d t he def endant r ai se an obj ect i on i n hi s

sent enci ng memor andum, or i nf or m t he Di st r i ct Cour t at sent enci ng

t hat i t bel i eved i t had er r ed i n concl udi ng - - as i t pl ai nl y st at ed

i n announci ng t he sent ence - - t hat , i n addi t i on t o t he 2006

convi ct i on f or assaul t , t her e was anot her qual i f yi ng convi ct i on

t hat was f or domest i c vi ol ence. The Di st r i ct Cour t t hus had no

Shepar d document s bef or e i t - - nor any request t hat i t obt ai n and

r evi ew such document s - - t hat mi ght cast doubt on ei t her t he pr e-

sent ence repor t ' s asser t i on t hat t he enhancement appl i ed or on t he

def endant ' s appar ent agr eement wi t h t hat asser t i on. Accor di ngl y,

we have no such Shepar d document s bef or e us now. And t hus, as

Davi s - - by i ncor por at i ng Tur bi des- Leonar do' s r easoni ng - -

i nst r uct s, we have no basi s f or concl udi ng i t i s r easonabl y

probabl e t hat t hose document s woul d show Ser r ano was convi ct ed of

an of f ense under Ar t i cl e 3. 1 t hat woul d not qual i f y as a cr i me of

vi ol ence.

-22-


23/55

I n f act , even now, on appeal , Ser r ano st i l l does not

asser t he was not convi ct ed under Ar t i cl e 3. 1 of t he of f ense

i nvol vi ng physi cal f or ce, nor does he request t o suppl ement t he

r ecor d to i ncl ude t he appr opr i at e document s of convi ct i on on the

gr ound t hat t hey woul d r edound t o hi s benef i t . See Uni t ed St at es

v. Zubi a- Tor r es, 550 F. 3d 1202, 1209 n. 3 ( 10t h Ci r . 2008)

( decl i ni ng t o consi der "t he ef f ect i f counsel had pr of f er ed t he

r el evant document s on appeal " ) . He cont ends onl y t hat i t cannot be

cer t ai n on t hi s r ecord whet her he was so convi ct ed and t hat , i n any

event , t he "physi cal f or ce" of f ense cl ear l y or obvi ousl y does not

qual i f y - - a cont ent i on we have al r eady r ej ect ed.

Ther ef or e, as i n Turbi des- Leonar do and Davi s, we concl ude

Serr ano has not shown t he necessary pr ej udi ce, even assumi ng t he

Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n not i ndependent l y seeki ng out t he recor ds

of convi ct i on. 6 Thi s concl usi on compor t s wi t h t he deci si ons of

6 Because we r el y on t he def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o show t henecessar y pr ej udi ce i n t hi s case, we need not addr ess whet her i twas cl ear and obvi ous er r or f or t he Di st r i ct Cour t t o f ai l suaspont e to demand and eval uate document s r el at i ng t o t he convi ct i on.Ot her ci r cui t s have addr essed t hi s i ssue. Compar e Uni t ed St at es v.Avi l es- Sol ar zano, 623 F. 3d 470, 475 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) ( char act er i zi ngl ack of obj ect i on as f actual st i pul at i on, and f i ndi ng no er r or ) ,wi t h, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Cast i l l o- Mar i n, 684 F. 3d 914, 921 ( 9t hCi r . 2012) ( f i ndi ng cl ear and obvi ous er r or ) . We have hel d t hat af ai l ur e t o demand and eval uate such document s was not cl ear and

obvi ous er r or wher e the def endant not onl y f ai l ed t o obj ect butal so "appar ent [ l y] acqui esce[ d] " i n hi s sent enci ng memor andum "t ot he char act er i zat i on of t he pr i or convi ct i ons as cr i mes ofvi ol ence" by st at i ng t hat he "t echni cal l y qual i f i es" f or t heenhancement . R os- Hernndez, 645 F. 3d at 463. But we hel d t hat i twas cl ear and obvi ous er r or i n t he ci r cumst ances addr essed byUni t ed St at es v. Tor r es- Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d 116 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , and

-23-


24/55

sever al si st er ci r cui t s i n si mi l ar pl ai n- er r or cases. See

Zubi a- Tor r es, 550 F. 3d at 1208- 10; Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 358

F. 3d 956, 966- 67 ( D. C. Ci r . 2004) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ransom, 502 F.

App' x 196, 198- 201 ( 3d Ci r . 2012) ( unpubl i shed) . And whi l e we ar e

aware t hat other ci r cui t s have vacated sent ences and r emanded af t er

f i ndi ng pl ai n er r or i n ar guabl y anal ogous ci r cumst ances, t hey di d

not , i n so doi ng, addr ess t he l ack- of - pr ej udi ce ar gument t hat t he

ot her ci r cui t s j ust ment i oned have r el i ed upon and t hat Davi s

r equi r es us t o f i nd det er mi nat i ve her e. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Reyes, 691 F. 3d 453, 460 ( 2nd Ci r . 2012) ( concl udi ng, wi t hout

expl anat i on, t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o sua spont e

i nvest i gat e t he document s of convi ct i on l ed t o an er r oneousl y

el evat ed of f ense l evel ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cast i l l o- Mar i n, 684 F. 3d

914, 927 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) ( same) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Pear son, 553 F. 3d

1183, 1186 ( 8t h Ci r . 2009) ( same) , par t i al l y over r ul ed on ot her

gr ounds by Uni t ed St at es v. Tucker , 740 F. 3d 1177, 1184 ( 8t h Ci r .

2014) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Boni l l a- Mungi a, 422 F. 3d 316, 321 ( 5t h Ci r .

2005) ( vacat i ng and r emandi ng wi t hout di scussi ng pr ej udi ce) .

We do not say, however , t hat t here are no ci r cumst ances

i n whi ch r ever sal i n a r el at ed case, i nvol vi ng di f f er ent f act s,

we came to a si mi l ar concl usi on i n di ct a i n our r ecent opi ni on i nUni t ed St at es v. Ramos- Gonzl ez, 775 F. 3d 483, 507 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ,on whi ch Ser r ano r el i es. We note t hat we al so suggest ed i n Ramost hat we woul d have f ound pr ej udi ce t o t he def endant , but i n doi ngso we di d not addr ess t he cont r ar y hol di ng on t hat poi nt of Davi s( based on t he r easoni ng of Tur bi des- Leonar do) , i d. , whi ch, as wehave expl ai ned, cont r ol s t hi s case.

-24-


25/55

mi ght be war r ant ed. I n Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r es- Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d

110 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , we hel d t he Di st r i ct Cour t commi t t ed

pr ej udi ci al pl ai n er r or i n char acter i zi ng t he convi ct i on at i ssue

i n t hat case as a cr i me of vi ol ence, i d. at 116. But t her e, under

Fi r st Ci r cui t pr ecedent , bi ndi ng at t he t i me of sent enci ng, i t was

cl ear f r omt he char gi ng document s i n t he r ecor d t hat t he convi ct i on

qual i f i ed cat egor i cal l y as a cr i me of vi ol ence. I d. at 115. The

def endant t hus under st andabl y di d not cont est t he char act er i zat i on

or asser t t hat t he ot her document s of convi ct i on woul d be r el evant

t o whet her t he convi ct i on was i n f act qual i f yi ng, and i ndeed

st i pul at ed t hat hi s convi ct i ons qual i f i ed. I d. at 115- 16.

By the t i me of t he appeal , however , t he Fi r st Ci r cui t had

changed cour se i n r esponse t o a r ecent case f r omt he Supr eme Cour t .

We had made cl ear t hat t he t ype of convi ct i on at i ssue di d not

necessar i l y qual i f y cat egor i cal l y as a cri me of vi ol ence and,

t her ef or e, t hat f ur t her i nqui r y i nt o t he document s of convi ct i on

under t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach woul d be appr opr i at e. I d.

at 115. For t hat r eason, t he un- obj ect ed- t o char act er i zat i on of

t he convi ct i on i n Tor r es- Rosar i o coul d not have been under st ood as

an unchal l enged agr eement t o a f act ual char act er i zat i on of t he

convi ct i on.

Her e, by cont r ast , as i n Tur bi des- Leonar do, no Fi r st

Ci r cui t pr ecedent , l at er over r ul ed, est abl i shed at t he t i me of

sent enci ng t hat t he convi ct i on f or t he under l yi ng of f ense

-25-


26/55

cat egor i cal l y qual i f i ed as a cr i me of vi ol ence. And so t he

def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o cont est t he pr e- sent ence r epor t ' s and t he

Di st r i ct Cour t ' s char acter i zat i on of t hose pr i or convi cti ons i s, as

Davi s hel d i n appl yi ng Tur bi des- Leonar do, key t o our assessment

t hat he has not met hi s bur den of showi ng pr ej udi ce. And whi l e

Davi s i s i t sel f a case wi t h f act s l i ke Tor r es- Rosar i o, t hat does

not make i t s expr ess adopt i on of Tur bi des- Leonar do' s prej udi ce

anal ysi s any l ess cont r ol l i ng i n a case l i ke t hi s one, whi ch

mi r r or s t he f act s i n Tur bi des- Leonar do r at her t he f act s i n Tor r es-

Rosar i o. We t hus do not addr ess how Davi s and Tor r es- Rosar i o' s

anal ysi s of t he pr ej udi ce i ssue shoul d be r econci l ed i n a case

pr esent i ng t he di st i nct f act s pr esent ed i n t hose cases.

III.

Under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, t he of f ense l evel

i ncreases by f our poi nt s i f t he f i r ear m i nvol ved i n a f el on- i n-

possessi on convi ct i on "had an al t er ed or obl i t er at ed ser i al

number . " U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1( b) ( 4) ( B) . Ser r ano' s pi st ol had an

obl i t er at ed ser i al number on t he f r ame and an unal t er ed ser i al

number on t he sl i de. The Di st r i ct Cour t t her ef or e appl i ed t he

f our - poi nt ser i al - number enhancement .

Ser r ano ar gues, however , t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed

because the ser i al number , t hough obl i t er at ed i n one pl ace,

r emai ned unal t ered el sewhere on t he gun. He cont ends that t he

gui del i ne coul d not have been i nt ended t o appl y i n such

-26-


27/55

ci r cumst ance because the ser i al number i t sel f r emai ns per f ect l y

vi si bl e, al bei t i n onl y one pl ace r at her t han t wo.

Whet her Gui del i ne 2K2. 1( b) ( 4) ( B) ' s f our - poi nt ser i al -

number enhancement may appl y i n t hi s t ype of case i s a quest i on of

l aw ( and, appar ent l y, a quest i on of f i r st i mpr essi on) . Because

Ser r ano pr oper l y pr eserved t hi s ar gument bel ow, our r evi ew i s de

novo. See Uni t ed St ates v. Mal donado, 614 F. 3d 14, 17 n. 1 ( 1st

Ci r . 2010) ( "Abst r act l egal i ssues under t he gui del i nes ar e

r evi ewed de novo . . . . ") .

Li ke t he Di st r i ct Cour t , we concl ude t he enhancement does

appl y i n Ser r ano' s case. The t ext of t he gui del i ne r equi r es onl y

"an al t er ed or obl i t er at ed ser i al number , " U. S. S. G.

2K2. 1( b) ( 4) ( B) ( emphasi s added) . The gui del i ne' s t ext does not

r equi r e t hat al l of t he gun' s ser i al number s be so af f ect ed. And

here, t he compl ete def acement of t he ser i al number on t he f r ame of

t he f i r ear m r esul t ed i n t he r equi r ed obl i t er at i on.

Mor eover , t hi s pl ai n r eadi ng of t he t ext - - t hat t he

obl i t er at i on of "a[ ] " ser i al number i s enough - - accor ds wi t h t he

i nt ent of Gui del i ne 2K2. 1( b) ( 4) , whi ch i s " t o ' di scour ag[ e] t he

use of unt r aceabl e weaponr y. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Car t er , 421 F. 3d

909, 914 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Seesi ng, 234 F. 3d 456, 460 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) ) . Appl yi ng an

enhancement f or f i r ear ms t hat have a si ngl e t ot al l y obscur ed ser i al

number may ser ve as a det er r ent t o t amper i ng, even when i ncompl et e.

-27-


28/55

And, r el at edl y, t he s i ngl e- obl i t er at i on r ul e coul d f aci l i t at e

t r acki ng each component t hat bear s a ser i al number, gi ven t hat

var i ous par t s of f i r ear ms may be sever abl e.

And pr ecedent i s not t o t he cont r ary. We have hel d t he

mer e al t er at i on of a ser i al number vi ol at es 18 U. S. C. 922( k) , a

r el at ed cr i mi nal st at ut e, wi t hout r egar d t o whet her such al t er at i on

i s sever e enough t o pr event t hat same ser i al number f r om bei ng

r ead, Uni t ed St at es v. Adams, 305 F. 3d 30, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ; see

al so Car t er , 421 F. 3d at 915- 16 ( appl yi ng Adams t o i nt erpr et

Gui del i ne 2K2. 1( b) ( 4) ( B) ) . So, t oo, we concl ude t he t ext of t hi s

gui del i ne i s best const r ued - - consi st ent wi t h t he pl ai n meani ng of

i t s words - - t o t r i gger t he enhancement when t he ser i al number on

t he f r ame of a f i r ear m i s obl i t er at ed even i f ot her ser i al number s

on t he f i r ear m, l i ke t he one l ef t i nt act on t he sl i de of t hi s

weapon, are unal t ered. 7 We t hus do not bel i eve t he Di st r i ct Cour t

er r ed i n appl yi ng t he f our - poi nt enhancement .

IV.

For t hese r easons, we af f i r m t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

sent ence agai nst t he chal l enges r ai sed i n t hi s appeal .

-Concurring Opinion Follows-

7 We do not need to reach the f ur t her i ssue whether t hegui del i ne woul d appl y i f t he ser i al number on t he f r ame wer eunal t er ed but a ser i al number on t he sl i de or ot her par t of t hef i r ear m wer e al t er ed or obl i t er at ed. See Uni t ed St at es v.Romer o- Mart i nez, 443 F. 3d 1185 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ( hol di ng t hegui del i ne appl i cabl e i n such a case) .

-28-


29/55

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge, concurring. A def endant whose

sent ence i s enhanced because of vi ol ent cr i mes he commi t t ed i n t he

past wi l l f ace subst ant i al l y mor e t i me i n pr i son t han someone

wi t hout a r ecor d of vi ol ence. Al t hough I do not quest i on

sent enci ng enhancement s f or def endant s wi t h vi ol ent cr i mi nal

hi st or i es, we must ensure t hat aggr avat ed penal t i es ar e i mposed

onl y when t he cr i mi nal hi st or i es j ust i f y t hem. Her e, appel l ant

chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s unsuppor t ed assumpt i on t hat hi s

convi ct i on under a "di vi si bl e" st at ut e was i n f act f or a cr i me of

vi ol ence. I r el uct ant l y agr ee wi t h my col l eagues t hat Fi r st

Ci r cui t pr ecedent r equi r es us t o r ej ect appel l ant ' s cl ai m.

However , our case l aw on how t o eval uat e pl ai n er r or i n t hi s

cont ext i s i nconsi st ent , and i t cannot be r econci l ed wi t h t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Shepar d v. Uni t ed St at es, 544 U. S. 13

( 2005) . I t her ef or e ur ge our cour t t o r ehear t hi s case en banc so

t hat we may cl osel y exami ne, and f ai r l y resol ve, an i mpor t ant and

compl ex quest i on of l aw: how does t he government ' s bur den t o

est abl i sh t hat a convi ct i on under a di vi si bl e st at ut e qual i f i es as

a pr edi cat e of f ense i nt er sect wi t h a def endant ' s bur den t o show

pl ai n er r or ?

Under t he anal ysi s descr i bed i n t he maj or i t y opi ni on,

appel l ant can sat i sf y t hepr ej udi ce pr ong of t he pl ai n er r or t est

onl y i f he pr oves t hat , but f or t he sent enci ng cour t ' s i mpr oper

r el i ance on hi s Ar t i cl e 3. 1 convi ct i on, i t i s r easonabl y pr obabl e

-29-


30/55

t hat he woul d have r ecei ved a l esser sent ence. As a pr act i cal

mat t er , t hat appr oach swi t ches t o def endant s t he obl i gat i on t he

Supr eme Cour t i mposed on t he government t o pr oduce speci f i c cour t

r ecor ds pr ovi ng t hat a convi ct i on under a di vi si bl e st at ut e

qual i f i es as a pr edi cat e of f ense. I n so doi ng, t he appr oach

creat es a r eal r i sk of l onger pr i son t er ms t han ar e j ust i f i ed by

def endant s' cri mi nal hi st or i es. As ot her ci r cui t shave recogni zed,

however , t hat pot ent i al har m can be easi l y avoi ded, wi t h mi ni mal

bur den on t he sent enci ng cour t . When t he cour t er r oneousl y r el i es

on a convi ct i on whose charact er cannot be determi ned wi t hout

Shepard- appr oved document s, t he def endant ' s sentence must be

vacat ed and t he case r emanded f or r esentenci ng. The government

wi l l t hen or di nar i l y have t he oppor t uni t y to subst ant i at e t hat t he

convi ct i on was f or an of f ense t hat qual i f i es as a pr edi cat e f or

enhancement . I f t he government cannot do so, t he enhancement i s

i mper mi ssi bl e.

As I expl ai n bel ow, t hi s modest r el i ef f ol l ows as a

mat t er of l ogi c and f ai r ness f r omcor r ect appl i cat i on of t he pl ai n

er r or t est i n t hi s cont ext . I ndeed, wi t h a f ul l under st andi ng of

t he under l yi ng pr i nci pl es, one can onl y concl ude t hat t he pr ej udi ce

anal ysi s art i cul at ed i n our pr ecedent - - r equi r i ng t he def endant t o

di spr ove hi s el i gi bi l i t y f or a sent ence enhancement - - i s

mi sgui ded. Our cour t shoul d convene en banc t o r emedy thi s ser i ous

probl em.

-30-


31/55

I.

A. Legal Background

As my col l eagues expl ai n wel l , when a cour t seeks t o

enhance a def endant ' s sent ence based on a pr i or convi ct i on under a

"di vi si bl e" st at ut e - - i . e. , wher e t he st at ut e cri mi nal i zes

di f f er ent t ypes of conduct , onl y some of whi ch may suppor t t he

enhancement - - t he cour t appl i es t he so- cal l ed modi f i ed cat egor i cal

appr oach t o det er mi ne whi ch ver si on of t he cr i me under l i es t he

def endant ' s convi ct i on. Descamps v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct .

2276, 2283- 84 ( 2013) ; see al so Uni t ed St ates v. Ramos- Gonzl ez, 775

F. 3d 483, 505 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( descr i bi ng a "di vi si bl e st at ut e" as

one t hat "sets f or t h one or mor e el ement s of a par t i cul ar of f ense

i n t he al t er nat i ve" ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Fi sh, 758 F. 3d 1, 6

( 1st Ci r . 2014) ) . Frequent l y, as i n t hi s case, t he enhancement

depends on whet her t he chal l enged pr i or convi ct i on was f or a "cr i me

of vi ol ence. " 8 See, e. g. , Ramos- Gonzl ez, 775 F. 3d at 504- 05. I f

a st at ut e cr i mi nal i zes bot h vi ol ent and non- vi ol ent conduct , " t he

sent enci ng cour t i s per mi t t ed t o consul t a l i mi t ed set of ' appr oved

r ecor ds' t o det er mi ne whi ch . . . pr ovi ded t he basi s f or t he

convi ct i on. " I d. at 505 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Car t er , 752 F. 3d

8 An of f ense qual i f i es as a cri me of vi ol ence i f i t i spuni shabl e by more t han one year of i mpr i sonment and ei t her " ( 1)has as an el ement t he use, at t empt ed use, or t hr eat ened use ofphysi cal f or ce agai nst t he per son of anot her , " or ( 2) i s one ofsever al enumer at ed cr i mes not r el evant her e, "or ot her wi se i nvol vesconduct t hat pr esent s a ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur yt o anot her . " U. S. S. G. 4B1. 2( a) .

-31-


32/55

8, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ) . The per mi ssi bl e r ecor ds consi st pr i mar i l y

of char gi ng document s, pl ea agr eement s, t r anscr i pt s of pl ea

col l oqui es, j ur y i nst r ucti ons, and ver di ct f or ms. I d. ; see al so

Shepar d, 544 U. S. at 26 ( descr i bi ng t he accept abl e r ecor ds, of t en

descr i bed as "Shepar d mat er i al s" ) . I f t he r ecor ds show t hat t he

def endant was not convi ct ed of a cr i me cont ai ni ng t he requi si t e

el ement s of vi ol ence - - or i f t he r ecor ds do not r eveal t he nat ur e

of t he cr i me - - t he convi ct i on may not be used t o enhance hi s

cur r ent f eder al sent ence. See Uni t ed St at es v. Dvi l a- Fl i x, 667

F. 3d 47, 57 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

At sentenci ng, t he bur den t o pr oduce t he document s t hat

r eveal ( or not ) t he nat ur e of t he pr of f er ed convi ct i on i s on t he

government . Dvi l a- Fl i x, 667 F. 3d at 55 ( "The Government bear s

t he bur den of est abl i shi ng t hat a pr i or convi ct i on qual i f i es as a

pr edi cat e of f ense f or sent enci ng enhancement pur poses. " ) . Hence,

i f t he government does not demonst r ate that t he def endant ' s

convi ct i on was f or a var i ant of t he cr i me t hat sat i sf i es t he cr i me-

of - vi ol ence def i ni t i on, i t i s er r or f or t he cour t t o t r eat t hat

convi ct i on as a pr edi cat e f or sent enci ng enhancement pur poses.

Thi s i s so whet her t he documents show t he cr i me t o be of t he non-

vi ol ent t ype or i f t he document s do not r eveal t he par t i cul ar

ver si on of t he cr i me under l yi ng t he convi ct i on. See Uni t ed St at es

v. Davi s, 676 F. 3d 3, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "I f , af t er exami nat i on of

t hese per mi ssi bl e document s, ' i t i s i mpossi bl e t o t el l whet her t he

-32-


33/55

def endant was convi ct ed of a vi ol ent or non- vi ol ent of f ense, ' t he

convi ct i on may not serve as a pr edi cat e of f ense. " ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Hol l oway, 630 F. 3d 252, 257 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) .

The compl exi t y ar i ses i f t he def endant f ai l s t o chal l enge

t he sent enci ng cour t ' s r el i ance on such a convi ct i on, and r ai ses an

obj ect i on f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal . We t r eat such a cl ai m as

f or f ei t ed and gi ve i t onl y pl ai n er r or r evi ew. 9 Under t hat

st andar d, t he def endant "bear [ s] t he ' heavy bur den' of showi ng t hat

t he er r or was cl ear or obvi ous, and t hat i t bot h af f ect ed hi s

subst ant i al r i ght s and ' 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. ' " Ramos- Gonzl ez,

775 F. 3d at 499 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v. Ramos- Mej a, 721 F. 3d 12,

14 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ) .

To per f or mt hi s i nqui r y, we need t o i dent i f y t he "er r or "

bef or e we can det er mi ne i f i t i s cl ear or obvi ous, and pr ej udi ci al .

Focusi ng on the Puert o Ri co st atut e under whi ch t he def endant was

convi ct ed, my col l eagues expl ai n t hat we may f i nd pl ai n er r or onl y

9 Al t hough t he ter ms " wai ver " and " f or f ei t ur e" ar e somet i mesused i nt erchangeabl y, " [ w] hether an obj ect i on has been wai ved orsi mpl y f or f ei t ed af f ect s t he scope of our appel l at e r evi ew. "Uni t ed St at es v. Gaf f ney- Kessel l , 772 F. 3d 97, 100 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .Wai ver occur s when a l i t i gant i nt ent i onal l y rel i nqui shes or

abandons a known r i ght , and we or di nar i l y wi l l not consi der awai ved i ssue on appeal . I d. ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ol ano, 507U. S. 725, 733 ( 1993) ) . For f ei t ur e r ef er s t o "a ' f ai l ur e t o maket he t i mel y asser t i on of a r i ght . ' " I d. ( ci t i ng Ol ano, 507 U. S. at733) . "A f or f ei t ed i ssue st i l l may be r evi ewed on appeal , al bei tf or pl ai n er r or . " I d. Thi s di st i ncti on i s i mpor t ant andconsequent i al i n cases l i ke t he one bef or e us.

-33-


34/55

i f we ar e "conf i dent t hat none of t he di st i nct of f enses set f or t h

i n t hat l aw" woul d qual i f y as a cr i me of vi ol ence. Sl i p op. at 16.

Ot her wi se, t hey say, an er r or i n usi ng t he convi ct i on as a

pr edi cate f or enhancement woul d not be cl ear or obvi ous. Moreover ,

dr awi ng on our pr ecedent s, t hey concl ude t hat t he def endant cannot

sat i sf y the pr ej udi ce pr ong of t he pl ai n er r or i nqui r y unl ess he

shows " ' a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y 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. ' " Sl i p op. at 21 ( quot i ng Davi s, 676 F. 3d at 10, whi ch

i n t ur n quot ed Uni t ed St at es v. Tur bi des- Leonar do, 468 F. 3d 34, 39

( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) . To accompl i sh t hi s showi ng of pr ej udi ce, t he

def endant , i n ef f ect , i s r equi r ed t o pr oduce Shepar d mat er i al s

r eveal i ng t hat hi s convi ct i on was f or a non- vi ol ent of f ense.

The ani mat i ng pr i nci pl e of t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal

appr oach, however , i s t hat enhanced sent enci ng i s i mpr oper unl ess

t he gover nment pr oves t hat t he def endant ' s cr i mi nal hi st or y

j ust i f i es such severe puni shment . Er r or occurs, t her ef or e,

whenever a sent enci ng cour t i ncr eases a t ermof i mpr i sonment based

on a pr edi cat e convi ct i on under a di vi si bl e st at ut e i n t he absence

of Shepar d- appr oved pr oof t hat t he convi ct i on was f or a qual i f yi ng

var i ant of t he cr i me. For t hat r eason, t he def endant ' s bur den i n

t he t r i al cour t i s si mpl y to not e t he absence of pr oof , not t o

pr of f er t he suppor t i ng document s t o di spr ove hi s el i gi bi l i t y f or an

enhancement . Under t he appr oach my col l eagues dr aw f r om pr i or

-34-


35/55

cases, Ser r ano' s f ai l ur e t o make t hat si mpl e obj ect i on t o t he l ack

of pr oof t r ansf er r ed t he dut y of pr oduct i on t o hi m on pl ai n er r or

r evi ew. 10

Al t hough my col l eagues underst andabl y f ol l ow a path set

out i n pr i or cases, t hi s dr amat i c shi f t of r esponsi bi l i t y i s unf ai r

and wr ong. I t her ef or e f i r st r evi ew why I vi ew our pr ecedent as

f l awed and i ncompat i bl e wi t h Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent bef ore

el abor at i ng on what I bel i eve i s t he pr oper anal ysi s.

B. The Varying Paths of our Prior Cases

Our cases do not pr esent a uni f ormappr oach f or anal yzi ng

pl ai n er r or i n t he cont ext of a cl ai m t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

i mpr oper l y l engt hened a sent ence based on t he def endant ' s pr i or

convi ct i on under a di vi si bl e st at ut e. I n some i nst ances, we have

hel d t he government account abl e f or t he absence of evi dence i n t he

r ecor d. See, e. g. , Ramos- Gonzl ez, 775 F. 3d at 506- 08 ( vacat i ng

sent ence t hat i ncl uded car eer of f ender st at us because the r ecor ds

submi t t ed by t he government di d not show t he natur e of def endant ' s

convi ct i on under a di vi si bl e st at ut e) ; Dvi l a- Fl i x, 667 F. 3d at 57

( concl udi ng t hat , "on the recor d bef or e us, t he Gover nment has not

met i t s bur den of pr ovi ng t hat [ def endant ' s] pr i or dr ug convi ct i on

qual i f i ed as a car eer of f ender pr edi cat e") ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Tor r es- Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d 110, 117 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( not i ng t hat ,

10 Li kewi se, even i f a def endant i nsi st s t hat t he cr i me ofconvi ct i on i s not a cr i me of vi ol ence, he does not have t o pr ovet hat asser t i on.

-35-


36/55

" [ o] n r emand, t he gover nment r emai ns ent i t l ed t o est abl i sh t he

[ basi s f or t he sent enci ng enhancement ] by showi ng t hat one of t he

assaul t and bat t er y convi ct i ons was a cr i me of vi ol ence" ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) ) . I n t he l at t er t wo cases, however , t he cour t s i dent i f i ed

r easons why the def endant s underst andabl y f ai l ed t o make an ear l i er

chal l enge t o t he depi ct i on of t hei r convi ct i ons as qual i f yi ng

pr edi cat es, t her eby ar t i cul at i ng j ust i f i cat i ons f or r emandi ng t he

case f or r esent enci ng not wi t hst andi ng t he def endant ' s heavy bur den

on pl ai n er r or r evi ew. 11 I n Ramos- Gonzl ez, t he government al r eady

had had mul t i pl e oppor t uni t i es t o pr ove car eer - of f ender st at us, and

t he panel decl i ned t o gi ve t he gover nment a t hi r d chance. 775 F. 3d

at 508.

I n ot her cases i nvol vi ng di vi si bl e st at ut es, panel s of

t hi s cour t have hel d t he def endant s account abl e f or t he absence of

support i ng document s i n t he recor d despi t e t he government ' s bur den

t o pr oduce such r ecor ds. See, e. g. , Davi s, 676 F. 3d at 9- 10;

Turbi des- Leonar do, 468 F. 3d at 39- 40. I n t hese cases, t he panel s

bypassed expl i ci t i dent i f i cat i on of t he er r or and - - ost ensi bl y

addr essi ng t he pr ej udi ce pr ong of t he pl ai n er r or st andar d - -

ar t i cul at ed t he r equi r ement r el i ed on by my col l eagues: a def endant

11 I n Dvi l a- Fl i x, t he cour t not ed t hat t he dr ug convi ct i onsat i ssue "wer e onl y br i ef l y ref er enced and wer e not di scussed orr el i ed upon at sent enci ng. " 667 F. 3d at 57. I n Tor r es- Rosar i o,t he panel excused a concessi on t hat t he def endant f el l wi t hi n t hear med car eer cr i mi nal st at ut e ( an ar guabl e wai ver ) because of achange i n Fi r st Ci r cui t l aw pr ompt ed by new Supr eme Cour tpr ecedent . See 658 F. 3d at 116.

-36-


37/55

must show t hat , absent t he er r or , he pr obabl y woul d have r ecei ved

a shor t er sent ence. Davi s, 676 F. 3d at 10; Tur bi des- Leonar do, 468

F. 3d at 39.

As I expl ai n bel ow, t he f ai l ur e t o conf r ont t he nat ur e of

t he er r or i s a t hr eshol d f l aw i n t he Tur bi des- Leonar do and Davi s

assessment s of pl ai n er r or , and t he mi st ake r esul t s i n a

mi sdi r ect ed pr ej udi ce anal ysi s. As my col l eagues r ecogni ze, t he

pl ai n er r or anal ysi s i n Tur bi des- Leonar do was di ct a, gi ven t he

panel ' s st at ement t hat , "[ a] l l t hi ngs consi der ed, we t hi nk t hat

what t r anspi r ed here amount ed t o wai ver . " 468 F. 3d at 38. 12 I n

Davi s, t he panel f ol l owed t he Tur bi des- Leonar do di ct a wi t hout

anal yzi ng i t s l egal f oundat i on, per haps because t he def endant ' s

conduct t here mani f est ed wai ver . 13 Davi s compl ai ned t hat he shoul d

not be sent enced as a car eer of f ender , but he never argued t hat

12 I n my vi ew, t he ci r cumst ances descr i bed i n Tur bi des- Leonar dodo not show wai ver . Wai ver shoul d be r eser ved f or cases i n whi cht he def endant expl i ci t l y agr ees t hat par t i cul ar l i st ed cr i mesqual i f y as pr edi cat es, and i t shoul d not be i nf er r ed f r omsi l ence.See Tor r es- Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d at 116 ( "At l east where a part y makesan expl i ci t and speci f i c concessi on, pr act i cal r easons f avorhol di ng a par t y t o such a concessi on . . . . " ) . I n Tur bi des-Leonar do, t he def endant si mpl y f ai l ed t o obj ect , bot h t o t hePr esent ence I nvest i gat i on Repor t ( "PSR") and at sent enci ng, whi chi s f or f ei t ur e. See 468 F. 3d at 37. Nonet hel ess, t he deci si oni ncor por at es an assumpt i on t hat wai ver occur r ed, and I wi l l dol i kewi se. I n t he case now bef or e us, Ser r ano di d obj ect t o t he

PSR' s gui del i nes cal cul at i on, al bei t on ot her gr ounds. Thegovernment does not argue wai ver , and I agr ee t hat Serr ano' sf ai l ur e t o obj ect speci f i cal l y on t he pr edi cat e- cri me i ssue i spr oper l y char act er i zed as f or f ei t ur e.

13 I ndeed, t he scenar i o i n Davi s i s mor e apt l y l abel ed a wai vert han were t he ci r cumst ances descr i bed i n Tur bi des- Leonardo.

-37-


38/55

car eer - of f ender st at us was i mpr oper because t he di st r i ct cour t

f ai l ed t o det er mi ne t he nat ur e of t he per t i nent pr edi cat e

convi ct i on. See 676 F. 3d at 6 n. 2, 7, 10 n. 7. I n f act , appel l at e

counsel t wi ce sought t o wi t hdr aw on t he gr ound t hat he "' coul d not

di scer n a non- f r i vol ous basi s f or appeal . ' " I d. at 6 n. 2 ( quot i ng

counsel ' s br i ef ) . The panel r ef used t hose r equest s and di r ect ed

counsel t o addr ess t he pl ai n er r or s t andar d. Counsel , however , di d

not submi t br i ef i ng on pl ai n er r or and, "when quest i oned at or al

ar gument r egar di ng any pot ent i al pr ej udi ce t o Davi s based on the

di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o under t ake t he cat egor i cal appr oach or

t o exami ne t he charact er of Davi s' s 2006 assaul t and bat t ery

convi ct i on, Davi s' s counsel coul d not poi nt t o any. " I d. at 10

n. 7.

I n t hese ci r cumst ances, I can underst and how t he Davi s

panel came to rel y on t he Tur bi des- Leonar do appr oach t o pl ai n er r or

wi t hout cl osel y exami ni ng i t or expl i ci t l y acknowl edgi ng i t as

di ct a. Tr eat i ng Davi s' s cl ai mas f or f ei t ed r at her t han wai ved was

gener ous and, gi ven t hat Davi s di d not r ai se t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

f ai l ur e t o appl y t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach even on appeal ,

t he panel had no r eason t o pr obe deepl y i nt o t he Tur bi des- Leonardo

ar t i cul at i on of t he i nqui r y. Her e, by cont r ast , Ser r ano devel ops

hi s cl ai m t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by count i ng hi s domest i c

vi ol ence of f ense as a pr edi cat e cr i me of vi ol ence, asser t i ng, i nt er

al i a, t hat some cr i mes under Ar t i cl e 3. 1 "cl ear l y do not i nvol ve

-38-


39/55

t he use of vi ol ent f or ce. " Br . at 23. Nonet hel ess, because Davi s

appl i es t he pl ai n er r or t est t o a scenar i o i t l abel s as f or f ei t ur e,

i t appear s t o be bi ndi ng pr ecedent on t he appl i cat i on of t he pl ai n

er r or t est wher e, as her e, t her e ar e no di st i ngui shi ng f act s l i ke

t hose i n Ramos- Gonzl ez, Dvi l a- Fl i x, or Tor r es- Rosar i o.

The f act r emai ns, however , t hat our cases f ai l t o deal

consi st ent l y wi t h t he gover nment ' s i ni t i al bur den of pr oof i n t he

pl ai n er r or cont ext . Wher e t he gover nment was requi r ed t o r et ai n

t he bur den t o pr ove t he nat ur e of t he def endant ' s convi ct i on, t he

cour t s r el i ed on par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances - - a change i n t he l aw,

t he convi ct i ons' non- essent i al r ol e i n t he pr i or sent enci ng, or t he

gover nment ' s mul t i pl e pr i or at t empt s - - t o expl ai n t he def endant s'

def aul t or f i nd t he bur den unmet . I n t he t wo i nst ances wher e t he

bur den was swi t ched f r om t he government t o t he def endant , t he

cour t s deal t expl i ci t l y or de f acto wi t h an i nt ent i onal

r el i nqui shment of t he def endant ' s r i ght s - - a wai ver - - and avoi ded

t he quest i on of what er r or t he cour t commi t t ed. We have not

exami ned how, or i f , t hese cases may be reconci l ed wi t h each other

and whet her t hey achi eve t he obj ect i ves of t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal

appr oach. Fur t her more, t he uneven t r eat ment wi t hi n our own ci r cui t

i s r ef l ect ed i n a conf l i ct among t he ci r cui t s. Compar e, e. g. ,

Uni t ed St at es v. Dant zl er , 771 F. 3d 137, 149 ( 2d Ci r . 2014) ( "The

absence of an obj ect i on wi l l not r el i eve t he Gover nment of i t s

bur den of pr ovi ng t hr ough Tayl or - and Shepard- appr oved sour ces t hat

-39-


40/55

t he ACCA enhancement appl i es. " ) , wi t h, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Zubi a- Tor r es, 550 F. 3d 1202, 1209 ( 10t h Ci r . 2008) ( "By f ai l i ng t o

pr esent any evi dence t hat r el evant document s woul d i ndi cat e hi s

convi ct i on was not f or [ a qual i f yi ng pr edi cat e of f ense] , t he

def endant has f ai l ed t o meet hi s bur den under t he t hi r d pr ong of

pl ai n er r or r evi ew. ") .

I n sum, we l ack a t hought f ul , uni f or m anal ysi s f or

assessi ng pl ai n er r or when a def endant cl ai ms t hat hi s sent enci ng

enhancement was i mproper l y based on an unexami ned convi ct i on under

a di vi si bl e st at ut e. Our cour t , en banc, shoul d t ake t he

oppor t uni t y t o devel op such an anal ysi s i n t hi s case.

C. The Correct Approach

To proper l y conduct t he pl ai n er r or i nqui r y, a cour t must

have a cor r ect under st andi ng of t he er r or at i ssue. As descr i bed

above, some of our cases have si dest epped t he quest i on of er r or t o

f ocus on t he quest i on of pr ej udi ce. I n so doi ng, however , t hose

cour t s per f or med an anal ysi s pr emi sed on a mi si dent i f i cat i on of t he

er r or , whi ch l eads t hem t o cast asi de t he gover nment ' s bur den of

pr ovi ng t he basi s f or an enhancement . I n Tur bi des- Leonardo and

Davi s, t he panel s f ocus on t he enhanced sent ence, and consequent l y

eval uate pr ej udi ce by aski ng t he usual quest i on we ask when

sent ences ar e r evi ewed f or pl ai n er r or : i s i t r easonabl y pr obabl e

t hat , but f or t he er r or , t he def endant woul d have r ecei ved a l ower

sent ence? The l engt h of t he sent ence - - t hough ul t i mat el y our

-40-


41/55

concer n - - i s not t he "pl ai n" er r or . Because t he gover nment

i ni t i al l y bear s t he bur den t o pr ove t hat a convi ct i on r epr esent s a

cr i me of vi ol ence, Dvi l a- Fl i x, 667 F. 3d at 55, t he er r or occur s

when t he di st r i ct cour t enhances a sent ence based on a pr i or

convi ct i on under a di vi si bl e st at ut e wi t hout f i r st conf i r mi ng t hat

t he convi ct i on qual i f i es as a pr edi cat e of f ense. That conf i r mat i on

may be achi eved i n var i ous ways: t hrough document ary evi dence

( i . e. , t he Shepar d mat er i al s) , by concessi on of t he def endant , or

by means of an i nt er pr et at i on of t he pr edi cat e cr i mi nal st at ut e - -

i . e. , a l egal r ul i ng by t he cour t - - t hat ever y var i ant of t he

of f ense qual i f i es as a cr i me of vi ol ence.

Here, where t he st atut e on i t s f ace appear s t o encompass

al t er nat i ves t hat nei t her i nvol ve physi cal f or ce agai nst a per son

nor pr esent a "ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y t o

anot her , " U. S. S. G. 4B1. 2( a) , 14 t he cour t er r ed by usi ng t he

convi ct i on t o enhance Serr ano' s sent ence wi t hout demandi ng pr oof

f r om t he gover nment t hat t he def endant ' s convi ct i on was f or a

vi ol ent ver si on of t he di vi si bl e cri me. I t i s possi bl e t hat t he

enhancement i s al so er r oneous because t he convi ct i on at i ssue was

not , i n f act , a cr i me of vi ol ence. But t o f i nd t hat t he sent enci ng

14Ar t i cl e 3. 1 appl i es t o "[ a] ny per son who empl oys physi calf or ce or psychol ogi cal abuse, i nt i mi dat i on or per secut i on agai nstt he per son of [ a domest i c par t ner ] . . . t o cause physi cal har m t ot he per son, t he pr oper t y hel d i n est eem by hi m/ her , . . . or t oanot her ' s per son, or t o cause gr ave emot i onal har m . . . . " P. R.Laws Ann. t i t . 8, 631.

-41-


42/55

j udge er r ed i n appl yi ng t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal approach, an

appel l at e cour t need not r each t he nat ur e of t he convi ct i on. Er r or

has occur r ed when t he cour t r el i es on a convi ct i on under a

di vi si bl e st at ut e wi t hout conf i r mi ng, t hr ough appr oved sour ces

pr ovi ded by t he gover nment , t hat t he convi ct i on r epr esent s a cr i me

of vi ol ence. 15

The f ai l ure t o r ecogni ze t hi s er r or i s what l ed t he

Turbi des- Leonar do panel ast r ay. I t s approach l ooks beyond t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s err oneous r el i ance on an unel abor at ed convi ct i on

under a di vi si bl e st atut e and asks whether t he def endant has shown

t hat t he pr oper anal ysi s woul d have r eveal ed t hat t he convi ct i on

was err oneousl y used as a pr edi cate f or enhancement . Even i f t he

di st r i ct cour t had per f or med t he pr oper anal ysi s, however - -

i nvol vi ng t he scrut i ny of Shepar d- appr oved document s - - t he i nqui r y

may not have shed l i ght on t he pr edi cat e convi ct i on. The

government may not have been abl e to pr oduce appropr i at e recor ds of

t he tar get ed convi ct i on - - t he document s may be i naccessi bl e or no

l onger exi st , meani ng t hat t he convi ct i on coul d not be used t o

15 I addr ess i n t hi s concur r ence onl y t he t r eat ment ofpr edi cat e convi ct i ons under a di vi si bl e stat ut e, wher e t he st at ut eon i t s f ace pr ovi des not i ce t o t he gover nment and t he cour t t hat aconvi ct i on i s unusabl e as a pr edi cat e of f ense wi t hout f ur t her

i nqui r y under t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach. I t her ef or e donot consi der t he nat ur e of pl ai n er r or r evi ew f or chal l enges t opr edi cat e convi ct i ons under "' i ndi vi si bl e' st at ut e[ s] . " Descamps,133 S. Ct . at 2281; i d. at 2282 ( hol di ng t hat "sent enci ng cour t smay not appl y t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach when t he cr i me ofwhi ch t he def endant was convi ct ed has a si ngl e, i ndi vi si bl e set ofel ement s" ) .

-42-


43/55

enhance t he def endant ' s sent ence. Hence, by f ocusi ng on t he

possi bi l i t y t hat t he def endant was convi ct ed of a qual i f yi ng cr i me,

and r equi r i ng hi m t o pr ove t hat he was not , we unf ai r l y l eap over

t he t hr eshol d anal yt i cal er r or , i . e. , t he sent enci ng cour t ' s

f ai l ur e t o r equi r e t he gover nment t o est abl i sh t he nat ur e of t he

convi ct i on t hr ough appr oved sour ces.

I f t hat er r or wer e pr oper l y acknowl edged, t he pl ai n er r or

anal ysi s her e woul d unf ol d unequi vocal l y i n t he def endant ' s f avor .

Gi ven t he br oad l anguage of Ar t i cl e 3. 1, and t he dear t h of evi dence

i ndi cat i ng whet her t he def endant was convi ct ed of a cr i me of

vi ol ence, t he cour t ' s er r or i n r el yi ng on t he unexami ned convi ct i on

was suf f i ci ent l y "pl ai n" t o sat i sf y t he second pr ong. The gap i n

t he r ecor d shoul d have been obvi ous t o t he cour t . The r emai ni ng

t wo el ement s are equal l y st r ai ght f or war d. A def endant i nescapabl y

suf f ers prej udi ce when he r ecei ves an ext ended t ermof i mpr i sonment

wi t hout t he evi dent i ar y suppor t necessar y t o j ust i f y i t , 16 and an

16 I n t he car eer of f ender cont ext , t he er r or t echni cal l yr esul t s i n an el evat ed base of f ense l evel , whi ch can be pr esumed t ol ead t he di st r i ct cour t t o i mpose a l onger sent ence t han woul dot her wi se appl y. See Tur bi des- Leonar do, 468 F. 3d at 37 ( not i ngt hat a l ower Gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange "pr esumabl y [ wi l l r esul ti n] a mor e l eni ent sent ence") . I n t he cont ext of t he Ar med Car eerCr i mi nal Act ( "ACCA") , t he er r oneous r el i ance on pr edi cat e

convi ct i ons may t r i gger i mpr oper mandatory mi ni mumsent ences. See,e. g. , Shepard, 544 U. S. at 15 ( not i ng t hat t he ACCA mandates ami ni mum 15- year sent ence af t er t hr ee convi ct i ons f or ser i ous dr ugof f enses or vi ol ent f el oni es) . We have l ong t r eat ed pr ecedent ont he ACCA and t he Gui del i nes career of f ender enhancementi nt er changeabl y wi t h r espect t o t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach.Ramos- Gonzl ez, 775 F. 3d at 504 n. 24.

-43-


44/55

unsupport ed, pr ol onged i ncarcerat i on must be deemed a mi scar r i age

of j ust i ce. See Ramos- Gonzl ez, 775 F. 3d at 507 & n. 29; Tor r es-

Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d at 117. 17

Admi t t edl y, t hi s pl ai n er r or anal ysi s has t he f eel of

al l owi ng t he def endant t o escape wi t h l i t t l e di sadvant age f r omhi s

f ai l ur e t o make a t i mel y obj ect i on. Al l f our pr ongs of t he pl ai n

er r or i nqui r y ef f ect i vel y t ur n on t he f i ndi ng t hat t he er r or was

pl ai n, and t he er r or wi l l al most al ways be pl ai n when t her e ar e no

suppor t i ng document s i n t he r ecor d. I mport ant l y, however , t he

t ypi cal r emedy f or a f i ndi ng of pr ej udi ci al pl ai n er r or i n t hi s

cont ext i s si mpl y a r emand f or devel opment of t he sent enci ng

r ecor d. I n many i nst ances, t he government on r emand wi l l be abl e

t o pr oduce t he necessar y document s t o subst ant i at e t he qual i f yi ng

pr edi cat e of f ense, and t he def endant ' s " vi ct or y" wi l l be shor t -

l i ved. Thi s i s t he appr oach t aken by a number of ci r cui t s. See,

e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Reyes, 691 F. 3d 453, 459- 60 ( 2d Ci r . 2012)

( per cur i am) ( f i ndi ng pl ai n er r or r equi r i ng r emand wher e t he

di st r i ct cour t r el i es on t he PSR t o char act er i ze an of f ense as a

"cr i me of vi ol ence, " "even wher e t he def endant does not obj ect t o

t he PSR' s descr i pt i on") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cast i l l o- Mar i n, 684 F. 3d

914, 919, 927 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) ( same) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Boyki n, 669

United States v. Serrano-Mercado, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Serrano-Mercado, 1st Cir. (2015)