United States v. Gonzalez Becerra

Good Law
784 F.3d 514·2015 WL 1637864·2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6036
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 14, 201513-50381California2,699 words

Opinion

Opinion

Murphy, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Carlos Gonzalez Becerra pleaded guilty to possessing stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 . In calculating his advisory sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the district court increased Gonzalez Becerra’s offense level by four because the offense “involved 50 or more victims.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B). The district court relied on the commentary to § 2B1.1, which provides that the term “victim” encompasses “any person who was the intended recipient, or addressee, of ... undelivered United States mail.” Id. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.4(C).

Gonzalez Becerra asserts the district court erred in relying on the definition of “victim” in the commentary because that definition is inconsistent -with the text of the guideline itself. Cf. Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 , 113 S.Ct. 1913 , 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993) (“[Commentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.”). In particular, he contends § 2B1.1 is a “fraud guideline” and, within that context, the term…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.