United States v. Francisco Martinez-Cano, United States of America v. Jorge Martinez-Castillo, United States of America v. Eduardo Arrendondo-Martinez

6 F.3d 1400 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco MARTINEZ-CANO, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge MARTINEZ-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo ARRENDONDO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 93-50257, 93-50266 and 93-50268. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 3, 1993. Decided Oct. 7, 1993. Callie A. Glanton, Federal Public Defenders, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellant Martinez-Cano. Steven M. Cron, Santa Monica, CA, for defendant-appellant Martinez-Castillo. Fred D. Heather, Paul Behrman, McKenna & Cuneo, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellant Arrendondo-Martinez. Steve Larson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before: NOONAN, FERNANDEZ, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge: 1 Francisco Martinez-Cano, Eduardo Arrendondo-Martinez, and Jorge Martinez-Castillo pled guilty to conspiracy to produce false identification documents. 18 U.S.C. Secs. 371 and 1028(a)(1). They were sentenced under the…

Francisco Martinez-Cano, Eduardo Arren-dondo-Martinez, and Jorge Martinez-Castillo pled guilty to conspiracy to produce false identification documents. 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1028(a)(1). They were sentenced under the 1992 version of the Sentencing Guide1 lines. The district court increased the base offense level for each of them by six points, based in part upon the number of documents involved. They appealed. We vacate the sentence, and direct that the district court’s alternate determination of a proper sentence be entered as the judgment in this case.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Immigration and Naturalization Service agents executed a search warrant at appellants’ apartment and arrested them. The agents found 16 social security cards, six of which had names, 466 blank alien registration cards, and 58 blank temporary resident cards. All were counterfeit. The agents also found various pieces of equipment which are used to manufacture false identification documents. Appellants were indicted and pled guilty to conspiracy to produce false identification documents.

At sentencing it was agreed that the social security cards could be paired with the other documents. That, of course, made a total…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent, and .would affirm. The question resolves into “what is a set?” 1 Construed in light of its purpose, the language of § 2L2.1(b)(2) and application note 2 is intelligible and rational. Though the district court articulated its sentence as a departure, I would hold that the same sentence was required without a departure, under a proper reading of the guidelines.

The conspirators in this case were caught with the following counterfeit cards:

Should the conspirators be sentenced on the basis of only 16 “sets” of cards, as the majority concludes, or on the basis of a higher number, as the district judge and I conclude?

The answer turns on the meaning of “set.” The guidelines, properly interpreted in light of their purpose, require a longer sentence because the conspirators engaged in more extensive criminal activity than persons caught with only 16 social security cards and 16 temporary resident or alien registration cards.

The majority opinion concedes that the word “set” has multiple meanings, some of which would allow single member sets. My Webster’s Third New International Dictionary —Unabridged (1981) has three columns of fine print defining…