USA v. Enrique Sanchez-Montes, No. 09-50222 (5th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 09-50222 Document: 00511326301 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-50222 Summary Calendar December 20, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. ENRIQUE SANCHEZ-MONTES, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:08-CR-2742-1 Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Enrique Sanchez-Montes appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 41 months imprisonment for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Calculating his Guidelines range at sentencing, the district court applied a 16-level enhancement, pursuant to advisory Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), for a prior drug-trafficking offense. Sanchez contends the Government failed to produce sufficient evidence establishing his prior felony drug-trafficking conviction where the sentence imposed exceeded 13 * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 09-50222 Document: 00511326301 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2010 No. 09-50222 months. In that regard, Sanchez contends his conviction for possession with intent to deliver , conceded during sentencing, did not establish he had a prior conviction involving an intent to distribute for purposes of applying the 16level enhancement. Because Sanchez did not object in district court to the 16-level enhancement, the issue is reviewed only for plain error. See United States v. Gonzalez-Terrazas, 529 F.3d 293, 296 (5th Cir. 2008). To establish plain error, Sanchez must show a clear or obvious error affecting his substantial rights. E.g., Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) provides for a 16-level increase if the defendant was deported after a felony-conviction drug-trafficking offense where the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months. A drug-trafficking offense includes dispensing a controlled substance with intent to distribute, with distribute defined as delivering a controlled substance, and delivery defined as the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. § 802(11), (8); U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iv). Sanchez incorrectly asserts there is insufficient evidence to support his prior Iowa felony-conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, maintaining the only reference to the conviction was by his attorney in district court. To the contrary, the presentence investigation report (PSR) referred to Sanchez 1996 Iowa felony-conviction and included, as an addendum, the charging instrument for that offense. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005) (holding charging documents constitute reliable evidence of prior guilty-plea convictions). Further, as noted, at sentencing, Sanchez made no objections to the PSR, and conceded: he had a 1996 felony-conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance; and the Government possessed the judgment to support the conviction. With regard to Sanchez contention his prior offense does not qualify as a drug-trafficking offense for purposes of the enhancement, Sanchez is in error. 2 Case: 09-50222 Document: 00511326301 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/20/2010 No. 09-50222 See United States v. Ford, 509 F.3d 714, 715 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding a conviction for possession with an intent to deliver a controlled substance qualified as basis for sentencing enhancement as controlled substance offense under Guidelines). His offense clearly falls within the definition of a drug-trafficking offense under Guideline § 2L1.2. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(11), (8); U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iv). Accordingly, Sanchez has shown no error, much less plain error, with respect to the 16-level enhancement. See also United States v. Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 204 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Fambro, 526 F.3d 836, 849-50 (5th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.