United States v. Olea-Rivera , 318 F. App'x 292 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    March 31, 2009
    No. 08-40769
    Summary Calendar               Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    JUAN OLEA-RIVERA
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:08-CR-227-ALL
    Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Juan Olea-Rivera (Olea) appeals the 57-month sentence imposed after he
    pleaded guilty to being in the United States illegally after deportation. Olea’s
    criminal history score included one point for an Alabama conviction of 3rd
    Degree Criminal Mischief, for which Olea received a suspended 30-day jail
    sentence and 12 months of probation. On appeal, Olea contends only that the
    criminal history point should not have been assessed for the criminal mischief
    *
    Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 08-40769
    conviction. Without that point, his advisory sentencing range would have been
    46 to 57 months rather than 57 to 71 months.
    Because Olea did not raise this issue in the district court, this court
    reviews his contention on appeal only for plain error. United States v. Henry,
    
    288 F.3d 657
    , 664 (5th Cir. 2002). To show plain error, Olea must show an error
    that is clear or obvious and that affected his substantial rights. See United
    States v. Baker, 
    538 F.3d 324
    , 332 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 962
    (2009). If he makes that showing, this court has the discretion to correct the
    error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
    proceedings. 
    Id. An error
    is clear or obvious only if it is clear under existing
    law, and an alleged error is not clear or obvious if the relevant law is unsettled.
    United States v. Salinas, 
    480 F.3d 750
    , 756, 759 (5th Cir. 2007).
    Olea contends that his criminal mischief offense is “similar to” the offense
    of disorderly conduct listed under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1) and that, consequently,
    the conviction may not be counted in his criminal history score because he was
    not sentenced to “a term of probation of more than one year or a term of
    imprisonment of at least thirty days.” 
    Id. We need
    not decide whether Olea’s
    criminal mischief crime is similar to the listed crime of disorderly conduct
    because, even if it is, Olea cannot show a clear or obvious error concerning the
    effect of his suspended 30-day sentence for criminal mischief.
    In order to show plain error regarding the disputed criminal history point,
    Olea must demonstrate that it is clear and obvious that his criminal mischief
    sentence was not “a term of probation of more than one year or a term of
    imprisonment of at least thirty days.” § 4A1.2(c)(1)(A). Olea’s 12-month term
    of probation is obviously not “a term of probation of more than one year.”
    § 4A1.2(c)(1)(A). However, Olea’s suspended 30-day jail sentence may meet the
    test.
    Generally, three criminal history points are awarded “for each prior
    sentence of imprisonment” of more than 13 months, and two points are awarded
    2
    No. 08-40769
    “for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least sixty days.” §§ 4A1.1(a)
    & (b). As in Olea’s case, a single point is awarded “for each prior sentence not
    [already] counted.” § 4A1.1(c) (emphasis added).
    The Guideline defining “prior sentence” states: “A conviction for which the
    imposition or execution of a sentence was totally suspended or stayed shall be
    counted as a prior sentence under § 4A1.1(c).” § 4A1.2(a)(3) (emphasis added).
    Although Olea argues that § 4A1.2(b)(2) and the definition of the “sentence of
    imprisonment” there should be applied to the definition of “prior sentence” in
    § 4A1.2(a)(3), there is no precedent in this circuit to that effect, and we are not
    persuaded to change the “prior sentence” definition. Relief for Olea under plain
    error is precluded. See 
    Salinas, 480 F.3d at 756
    , 759.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-40769

Citation Numbers: 318 F. App'x 292

Judges: Davis, Elrod, Per Curiam, Reavley

Filed Date: 3/31/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023