United States v. Mora-Peralta ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 3 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________ PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4165
(D. Utah)
CARLOS MORA-PERALTA, (D.Ct. No. 98-CR-188)
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Carlos Mora-Peralta appeals the two- to three-year term of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
supervised release imposed by the district court at sentencing. We exercise our
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
The government indicted Mr. Mora-Peralta for illegal reentry after
deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C § 1326. At the same time, the government
filed a notice of sentencing enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), requesting
the district court enhance Mr. Mora-Peralta’s sentence based on his prior
conviction for an aggravated felony, thereby increasing his maximum term of
imprisonment to twenty years. Following Mr. Mora-Peralta’s guilty plea, the
district court applied the enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his
prior conviction, and sentenced him to 46 months in prison and a two- to three-
year term of supervised release in conformance with the twenty-year maximum
term of imprisonment.
On appeal, Mr. Mora-Peralta claims the district court improperly calculated
his term of supervised release. While Mr. Mora-Peralta agrees the maximum term
of imprisonment must be used to calculate the term of his supervised release, he
suggests the maximum term of imprisonment must be premised solely on the base
offense for which he was convicted, without any enhancement for prior
convictions. Because the unenhanced, maximum sentence for reentry after
-2-
deportation is only two years, he asserts his offense is a Class E felony subjecting
him to only a one-year term of supervised release, rather than a Class C felony
subjecting him to a three-year term of supervised release.
Generally, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and
its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See United States v.
Flores, 149 F.3d 1272, 1279 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 849 (1999).
However, because Mr. Mora-Peralta did not object to the term of supervised
release prior to or at sentencing, we review the district court’s challenged
interpretation of the applicable statutes for plain error, see United States v.
Farnsworth, 92 F.3d 1001, 1007 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1034 (1996);
see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
By statute, the term of any supervised release is based on the maximum
term of imprisonment authorized for the offense committed. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3559(a) & 3583(b); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a). The United States Supreme Court
has interpreted “maximum term authorized” to “include all applicable statutory
sentencing enhancements.” United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 753 (1997).
In applying this definition to sentencing determinations, the Supreme Court has
concluded that “[w]here Congress has enacted a base penalty for first-time
-3-
offenders or nonqualifying repeat offenders, and an enhanced penalty for
qualifying repeat offenders, the ‘maximum term authorized’ for the qualifying
repeat offenders is the enhanced, not the base term.” Id. at 759.
Under the sentencing statutes at issue in this case, the maximum term of
imprisonment authorized for illegal reentry of a deported alien is two years,
unless the deportation was “subsequent to a conviction for commission of an
aggravated felony,” in which case, the maximum term of imprisonment authorized
is “not more than 20 years.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)(2) & (b)(2). Because Mr.
Mora-Peralta’s removal from the country followed his conviction for an
aggravated felony, it is clear his maximum term of imprisonment under the
applicable statutory sentencing enhancement, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), is twenty
years. An offense with a maximum term of imprisonment of twenty years is
classified as a Class C felony under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3), and the length of
supervised release for a Class C felony is “not more than three years,” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(b)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(2). Under these circumstances, the
district court did not err in sentencing Mr. Mora-Peralta to a two- to three-year
term of supervised release.
For the foregoing reasons, the sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED.
-4-
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-5-