United States v. Fraga-Araigo ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20317
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
VERSUS
MARTIN FRAGA-ARAIGO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas, Houston
(99-CR-436)
November 20, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
*
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Martin Fraga-Araigo, filed this motion requesting
that we recall our mandate pursuant to Rule 41.2 of the Fifth
Circuit Rules, which allows us to recall a mandate if necessary to
prevent injustice. An example of such an injustice is when a
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
1
subsequent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court or this court renders
a previous appellate decision demonstrably wrong. See United
States v. Tolliver, 116 F.3d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 1997); Burton v.
United States, 237 F.3d 490, 490-91 (5th Cir. 2000).
Fraga-Araigo, a foreign national, was deported in 1995. Prior
to his deportation, he had been convicted on three occasions, in
1989, 1991, and 1993, for felony driving while intoxicated (“DWI”)
under Texas state law. He reentered the United States illegally,
was apprehended, and appeared before the district court, which
found him guilty of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 et. seq.
During sentencing, on April 3, 2000, the district court
characterized Fraga-Araigo’s prior felony DWI convictions as
aggravated felonies under the sentencing guidelines applicable to
§ 1326 offenses, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, et. seq. The district court
adopted the definition of “aggravated felony” set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43), as referenced by U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, as a “crime of
violence” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). Therefore, the
sentencing terms of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), for illegal reentry
subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, applied rather
than those of § 1326(b)(1), for misdemeanors and felonies other
than the aggravated type. The effect of such a finding was to
apply a 16-level offense increase under U.S.S.G. §2L1.2 to Fraga-
Araigo’s base offense level of 8 and to elevate his mandatory
sentencing range under the guidelines to as much as 71 months. The
2
district court, in fact, sentenced him to 71 months. If the
earlier DWI convictions had qualified as felonies other than
aggravated, Fraga-Araigo would have been sentenced to a shorter
term, possibly of 30 months or less.
Fraga-Araigo was convicted on three occasions for DWI
offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1326 establishes that the penalty for illegal
reentry is enhanced for an individual whose removal was subsequent
to a conviction for three or more misdemeanors involving drugs,
crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an
aggravated felony) and is enhanced again for an individual whose
removal was subsequent to an aggravated felony. It does not
establish any higher punishment for multiple convictions for non-
aggravated felonies. Therefore, if remanded for re-sentencing in
accordance with Chapa-Garza, Fraga-Araigo would still be eligible
for sentencing under the guidelines applicable to illegal reentry
subsequent to a conviction for a felony other than an aggravated
felony.
The district court adopted such a characterization because of
our earlier opinion in Camacho-Marroquin v. I.N.S., 188 F.3d 649
(5th Cir. 1999), which established felony DWI as a crime of
violence and thus an aggravated felony for sentencing purposes.
That opinion was withdrawn on July 11, 2000, following that
appellant’s motion to withdraw his request for a rehearing en banc,
allowing him to be deported in lieu of incarceration. Camacho-
3
Marroquin v. I.N.S., 222 F.3d 1040 (5th Cir. 2000). Regardless, in
Fraga-Araigo’s case, the “aggravated felony” precedent applied at
the time of sentencing. When Fraga-Araigo filed his brief on
appeal with the Fifth Circuit on July 21, 2000, there still was no
clear basis to determine error in the district court’s sentencing.
We have since ruled that felony DWI under Texas law, by its
nature, does not constitute a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C.
§ 16(b) and therefore is not an “aggravated felony” within the
meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. See United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243
F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001). On that basis, we remanded Chapa-
Garza to trial court for re-sentencing. We have since applied
Fifth Circuit Rule 41.2 to ensure no injustice would accrue in
other, similar cases. See, i.e., United States v. Rangel-Mendoza,
No. 00-40561, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 21955 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2001).1
Applying Rule 41.2 may not be appropriate in every case in
which a prisoner moves for post-mandate relief on the basis of a
subsequent opinion such as Chapa-Garza. For example, a motion to
recall a mandate after a lengthy period without petitioning for a
writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, pursuing a habeas
corpus petition, or waiting a year or more without seeking relief
through some other direct appeal or collateral attack would be
disfavored because the apparent lack of true interest on the part
1
Unpublished order granting a motion to recall a mandate, and
vacating and remanding for re-sentencing under conditions
substantially similar to this case.
4
of the movant would tend to show that injustice has not been done.
Fraga-Araigo was sentenced by the district court in April 2000
and filed his brief on appeal in July 2000. Judgment by this court
was not entered until August 21, 2001, however, and the mandate in
this case was issued on September 12, 2001. Chapa-Garza was
decided in the interim and could have been considered by this panel
before entering judgment. Fraga-Araigo’s motion to reopen the
appeal, recall the mandate and to vacate and remand was filed on
October 22, 2001. Although he would have avoided the need for this
motion had he provided a supplementary brief to the court on Chapa-
Garza’s applicability, there is no doubt he has been both assiduous
and timely in pursuing his interests. In fact, he is still within
the 90 day window to petition for a writ of certiorari should he
not be successful on this motion. Because the mandate was issued
so recently, despite the extended period since Fraga-Araigo’s
original conviction and sentencing, the motion is eligible for
consideration.
Under the unusual circumstances surrounding Fraga-Araigo’s
sentencing followed by our opinion in Chapa-Garza, having noted
that the government does not oppose Fraga-Araigo’s motion and to
prevent injustice under Rule 41.2,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellant’s motion to reopen the
appeal is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s motion to recall the
5
mandate is GRANTED:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sentence pronounced on the
appellant by the district court is VACATED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the
district court for re-sentencing in accordance with this order.
6