United States v. Romero-Orbe, No. 15-3992 (8th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Defendant appealed his 36 month sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after a previous removal and commission of an aggravated felony. The court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error by applying a sixteen-level enhancement because defendant's prior conviction of domestic assault under Minn. Stat. 609.2242, subdivision 4, was a crime of violence. The court explained that this case was controlled by the reasoning in United States v. Schaffer, where this court determined that an act undertaken with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death necessarily involves a threatened use of physical force against the person of another. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. This case is controlled by U.S. v. Schaffer, 818 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2016) and the district court did not err in determining defendant's conviction for domestic assault under Minn. Stat. Section 609.2242, subd. 4, was a crime of violence under Guidelines Sec. 2L1.2.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3992 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jose Luis Romero-Orbe, also known as Jose Ramon Armenta-Valdez, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: October 19, 2016 Filed: April 17, 2017 ____________ Before LOKEN, SMITH,1 and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Jose Romero-Orbe pleaded guilty to illegal reentry to the United States after a previous removal and conviction for commission of an aggravated felony. See 8 1 The Honorable Lavenski R. Smith became Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on March 11, 2017. U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court2 sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment. Romero-Orbe appeals, arguing that the district court committed procedural error in calculating the advisory guideline range. Under the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, the defendant’s offense level was enhanced by 16 levels if he previously was deported after a conviction for a felony that was a “crime of violence.” USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (2015). “Crime of violence” under the guideline includes any offense under state law that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” Id., comment. (n.1(B)(iii)). Romero-Orbe contends that the district court mistakenly concluded that his prior conviction for domestic assault under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subdivision 4 was a crime of violence that triggered the increase. Subdivision 4 provides that a violation of subdivision 1 of the statute constitutes a felony, as opposed to a misdemeanor, if it is committed within ten years of the first of any two or more prior domestic violence-related convictions. Subdivision 1, in turn, explains that a domestic assault occurs when a person, against a family or household member, “(1) commits an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or (2) intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another.” § 609.2242, subd. 1 (2013). The district court ruled that Romero-Orbe’s conviction under § 609.2242, subdivision 4 qualified as a “crime of violence,” because the offense satisfied the “force” clause of the definition in the guideline. Romero-Orbe disputes this conclusion. He maintains that under subdivision 1(1), a person can be convicted 2 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- based on an intent to cause fear, without “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” Therefore, he argues, the Minnesota statute is not categorically a crime of violence, and the district court erred by increasing his offense level. This case is controlled by the reasoning of United States v. Schaffer, 818 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2016). In Schaffer, this court determined that Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subdivision 1(1) qualifies as a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The court reasoned that an act undertaken with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death necessarily involves a threatened use of physical force against the person of another. 818 F.3d at 798. Although Schaffer applied § 924(e) rather than the sentencing guideline at issue here, the applicable definitions are identical, and we see no basis for a distinction. Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that Romero-Orbe’s conviction under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subdivision 4 was for a crime of violence under USSG § 2L1.2. There was no procedural error. The judgment of the district court is 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.