Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealpleafelonycommon lawappellantsentencing guidelines
statuteappealpleafelonycommon lawappellantsentencing guidelines

Related Cases

Mumad v. Garland
View Case »
Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales
View Case »
Martinez-Perez v. Barr
View Case »
Mesa Airlines v. U.S.
View Case »
Susma, Matter of
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sandoval-Barajas; U.S. v.

Facts

Sandoval-Barajas, a Mexican citizen, was convicted in state court in Washington of possession of a firearm by a non-citizen. He served a short jail sentence and was deported. Subsequently he was caught in the United States, and pleaded guilty to another criminal entry into the United States. His sentence was enhanced by sixteen levels because the guidelines provide for that adjustment if the alien was previously deported after conviction for an 'aggravated felony.' He appeals the sentence.

Sandoval-Barajas, a Mexican citizen, was convicted in state court in Washington of possession of a firearm by a non-citizen. He served a short jail sentence and was deported. Subsequently he was caught in the United States, and pleaded guilty to another criminal entry into the United States. His sentence was enhanced by sixteen levels because the guidelines provide for that adjustment if the alien was previously deported after conviction for an 'aggravated felony.' He appeals the sentence.

Issue

The issue in this case is whether violation of a Washington gun law is an aggravated felony for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

The issue in this case is whether violation of a Washington gun law is an aggravated felony for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

Rule

'Aggravated [**3] felony' is defined at 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43). That statute defines 'aggravated felony' in sixteen lettered subsections, and many more sub-subsections. Some use the name of a common law crime, such as 'murder' and 'rape.' Some refer to malum prohibitum with the qualification 'as defined in,' such as 'illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices (as defined in section 102 of Title 18).' The subsection at issue used the phrase 'as described in' rather than 'as defined in.'

'Aggravated [**3] felony' is defined at 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43). That statute defines 'aggravated felony' in sixteen lettered subsections, and many more sub-subsections. Some use the name of a common law crime, such as 'murder' and 'rape.' Some refer to malum prohibitum with the qualification 'as defined in,' such as 'illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices (as defined in section 102 of Title 18).' The subsection at issue used the phrase 'as described in' rather than 'as defined in.'

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining whether Sandoval-Barajas's crime under Washington state law was 'described' by 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5). The court noted that the federal crime of possession of a gun by an illegal alien does not describe the crime defined by the Washington statute. One obvious difference is that the federal statute requires an interstate or foreign commerce element, but the Washington statute does not. The court concluded that where conduct could comply with the relevant federal statute yet violate the state statute, the federal crime cannot be deemed to be 'described in' the state statute.

The court applied the rule by determining whether Sandoval-Barajas's crime under Washington state law was 'described' by 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5). The court noted that the federal crime of possession of a gun by an illegal alien does not describe the crime defined by the Washington statute. One obvious difference is that the federal statute requires an interstate or foreign commerce element, but the Washington statute does not. The court concluded that where conduct could comply with the relevant federal statute yet violate the state statute, the federal crime cannot be deemed to be 'described in' the state statute.

Conclusion

The court held that Sandoval-Barajas's Washington state conviction was not an aggravated felony for federal sentencing purposes, and thus the case was remanded for resentencing.

The court held that Sandoval-Barajas's Washington state conviction was not an aggravated felony for federal sentencing purposes, and thus the case was remanded for resentencing.

Who won?

Appellant prevailed in the case because the court found that his state conviction did not qualify as an aggravated felony under federal law, leading to a remand for resentencing.

Appellant prevailed in the case because the court found that his state conviction did not qualify as an aggravated felony under federal law, leading to a remand for resentencing.

You must be