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

defendantattorneyplealeasefelonyparoledeportationguilty pleasentencing guidelines
defendantattorneyplealeasefelonyparoledeportationguilty pleasentencing guidelines

Related Cases

Ayala-Gomez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Ibarra-Galindo; U.S. v.
View Case »
United States v. Guevara-Umana
View Case »
Gonzalez-Pena; U.S. v.
View Case »
Salazar-Regino v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Guadardo

Facts

Ayala Guadardo pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with illegal re-entry into the United States after deportation subsequent to a felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1). The factual resume signed by Ayala Guadardo at the time of his guilty plea recited: 'On July 6, 1990, the defendant, Jorge Ayala Guadardo, was convicted in the 291st District Court of Dallas County, Texas for the offense of Burglary of a Habitation. He received a 10 year sentence. On May 20, 1991, the defendant was released on parole. He was deported to El Salvador on June 19, 1991. On December 28, 1993, the defendant was found in the United States at Dallas County, Texas. He had not obtained the consent of the Attorney General of the United States to reapply for admission into the United States.'

Ayala Guadardo pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with illegal re-entry into the United States after deportation subsequent to a felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1). The factual resume signed by Ayala Guadardo at the time of his guilty plea recited: 'On July 6, 1990, the defendant, Jorge Ayala Guadardo, was convicted in the 291st District Court of Dallas County, Texas for the offense of Burglary of a Habitation. He received a 10 year sentence. On May 20, 1991, the defendant was released on parole. He was deported to El Salvador on June 19, 1991. On December 28, 1993, the defendant was found in the United States at Dallas County, Texas. He had not obtained the consent of the Attorney General of the United States to reapply for admission into the United States.'

Issue

Whether the district court erred in concluding that the defendant's conviction for burglary of a habitation constituted an aggravated felony under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2L1.2(b)(2).

Whether the district court erred in concluding that the defendant's conviction for burglary of a habitation constituted an aggravated felony under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2L1.2(b)(2).

Rule

Burglary of a habitation under section 30.02 of the Texas Penal Code constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16.

Burglary of a habitation under section 30.02 of the Texas Penal Code constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by referencing previous cases, specifically United States v. Cruz and United States v. Flores, which established that burglary of a habitation is always considered a crime of violence. The court noted that the district court did not need to consider the specific facts of Guadardo's conviction because the nature of the offense itself inherently involved a substantial risk of physical force.

The court applied the rule by referencing previous cases, specifically United States v. Cruz and United States v. Flores, which established that burglary of a habitation is always considered a crime of violence. The court noted that the district court did not need to consider the specific facts of Guadardo's conviction because the nature of the offense itself inherently involved a substantial risk of physical force.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the defendant's sentence because the district court correctly found that the defendant had been convicted of a crime of violence and properly refused to look into the facts underlying the conviction.

The court affirmed the defendant's sentence because the district court correctly found that the defendant had been convicted of a crime of violence and properly refused to look into the facts underlying the conviction.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's classification of the defendant's prior conviction as a crime of violence, which justified the sentence imposed.

The United States prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's classification of the defendant's prior conviction as a crime of violence, which justified the sentence imposed.

You must be