Leal-Felix

United States v. Leal-Felix

Good Law
625 F.3d 1148·2010 WL 4273363·2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22671
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 1, 2010No. 09-50426California7,794 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Goodwin, J.

Opinion by Judge GOODWIN; Dissent by Judge BENNETT.

OPINION

Israel Leal-Felix, a previously deported Mexican citizen, appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a), unlawful reentry into the United States of a removed alien, because of an alleged miscalculation in his criminal history. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Leal-Felix was deported to Mexico in February, 2005, after pleading guilty to the aggravated felony of possessing a firearm by a convicted felon. In March, 2009, Leal-Felix reentered the United States and was found in the Central District of California without having applied for admission to the United States following his removal. Under a plea agreement, LealFelix pled guilty to a single-count information for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a), which subjected him to a potential imprisonment term of 20 years. 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(2). The plea agreement provided that LealFelix would be sentenced at the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines range, determined by a total offense level of 9 and his calculated criminal history.

The Probation Office calculated LealFelix’s criminal history at 14 points, including in the calculation…

Dissenting Opinion

Bennett, J.

dissenting:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. THE DECISION IN MORGAN.............................................1152

II. THE MAJORITY’S DECISION............................................1158

III. PLAIN AND ORDINARY MEANING.......................................1154

A. Rules Of Interpretation And Construction...............................1154

B. “Arrest” Plainly Does Not Include “Citation”...........................1155

C. The Purpose Of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) ..................................1157

D. A Split Does Not Create Ambiguity.....................................1158

IV. POTENTIAL AMBIGUITY................................................1159

A. “Airest” In Other Contexts............................................1159

1. Dictionary deñnitions.............................................1159

2. Common law deñnitions...........................................1160

3. State statutory deñnitions.........................................1160

B. Context And Purpose .................................................1161

C. The Rule Of Lenity...................................................1161

V. CONCLUSION…

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.