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

defendantprecedentleasefelonyprobationparolesentencing guidelines
defendantappealleasefelony

Related Cases

Bamba v. Elwood
View Case »
Kellman v. District Director
View Case »
United States v. Gamboa-Garcia
View Case »
Arcila Ramirez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Gomez-Guerra; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Velasquez-Canales; U.S. v.

Facts

Juan Angel Velasquez-Canales, a citizen of Honduras, pled guilty to illegal reentry after being deported following a felony conviction. He was sentenced to 36 months in prison after the district court applied a six-level enhancement to his offense level based on his prior North Carolina convictions for larceny and eluding arrest, which included a term of post-release supervision. Velasquez-Canales contested the enhancement, claiming it should have been lower due to the nature of his prior sentence.

Velasquez-Canales, a citizen and native of Honduras, unlawfully reentered the United States after having been deported. After reentering the United States, Velasquez-Canales was convicted of several offenses, including larceny, public intoxication, driving while intoxicated or impaired, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Of most importance to this appeal, in 2018 Velasquez-Canales was convicted in North Carolina for larceny of a motor vehicle and eluding arrest in a motor vehicle with two aggravating factors, for which Velasquez-Canales was sentenced to 6 to 17 months in prison.

Issue

Did the district court err in applying a six-level enhancement to Velasquez-Canales' offense level based on his prior North Carolina convictions, considering the nature of post-release supervision?

On appeal, Velasquez-Canales contends the district court erred by applying the enhancement based on the 2018 North Carolina convictions. He argues that those convictions should have yielded only a four-level offense level increase because the nine-month period of post-release supervision for the convictions was not part of his 'sentence of imprisonment.'

Rule

Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2L1.2(b)(2)(C), a six-level increase applies if the defendant was convicted of a felony offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded one year and one month. The term 'sentence imposed' includes any term given upon revocation of probation, parole, or supervised release.

Sentencing for an illegal reentry conviction is governed by U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. That guideline provides for a six-level increase to the base offense level if, after the defendant was ordered removed from the United States for the first time, he was convicted of a felony offense 'for which the sentence imposed exceeded one year and one month.'

Analysis

The court determined that the district court correctly applied the six-level enhancement based on the sentence imposed for Velasquez-Canales' prior convictions. It referenced the precedent set in United States v. Barlow, which established that North Carolina law treats post-release supervision as part of the term of imprisonment. Therefore, the enhancement was justified as the total sentence exceeded the threshold required for the six-level increase.

As the district court recognized, Velasquez-Canales' argument is foreclosed by our decision in Barlow, in which we held that '[North Carolina] law renders post-release supervision part of the term of imprisonment.' 811 F.3d at 140. Velasquez-Canales' argumentthat Barlow dealt with the question of whether an offense was 'punishable' by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year and, here, the question is whether the 'sentence imposed' exceeded 13 monthsis of no consequence.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the enhancement was properly applied under the guidelines.

Therefore, the district court properly enhanced Velasquez-Canales' offense level based on the sentence imposed for Velasquez-Canales' prior North Carolina convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case as the court upheld the district court's decision to apply the six-level enhancement based on Velasquez-Canales' prior convictions.

The United States prevailed in the case as the court upheld the district court's decision to apply the six-level enhancement based on Velasquez-Canales' prior convictions.

You must be