U.S. v. Carrasco-Salazar, No. 06-2311.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPaul Kelly, Jr.
Citation494 F.3d 1270
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CARRASCO-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 06-2311.
Decision Date30 July 2007
494 F.3d 1270
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Roberto CARRASCO-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-2311.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 30, 2007.

[494 F.3d 1271]

Terri J. Abernathy, Assistant United States Attorney, (and Larry Gomez, Acting United States Attorney, on the brief), Las Cruces, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Leon Schydlower, El Paso, Texas, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.


Defendant-Appellant Roberto Carrasco-Salazar pled guilty to unlawful reentry by an alien previously convicted of an aggravated felony, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) & (b)(2), and appeals his sentence of 70 months' imprisonment. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.

Background

Mr. Carrasco is a Mexican citizen. In 1996, he pled guilty to one count of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree in Minnesota, see Minn.Stat. § 609.345(1)(c), and he was deported on January 16, 2002. On October 24, 2003, the border patrol arrested Mr. Carrasco in Sunland Park, New Mexico. After waiving indictment, he entered a plea of guilty on December 30, 2003 to an information charging him with unlawful reentry.

The Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") in advance of sentencing. The PSR calculated Mr. Carrasco's base offense level at 8, but it recommended a 16-level enhancement based upon his prior conviction for fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). After deducting 3 points for acceptance of responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1, the PSR determined that Mr. Carrasco's total offense level was 21. Mr. Carrasco's criminal history score was calculated to be 13, leading to a criminal history category of VI. This resulted in a Guideline sentencing range of 77 to 96 months' imprisonment.

On April 22, 2004, Mr. Carrasco filed objections to the PSR, contesting both the 16-level enhancement and the calculation of his criminal history score. R. Doc. 14, at 1-2. The objection relevant to this appeal challenged the PSR's use of Mr. Carrasco's Minnesota conviction to enhance his offense level, arguing that fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct is not categorically a crime of violence because it includes acts which would not constitute crimes of violence. See Minn. Stat. § 609.345; Aplt. Br. at 7-10.

In response, the Probation Office submitted an addendum to the PSR, which included a copy of the Minnesota complaint charging Mr. Carrasco with fourth degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.345(1)(c). This particular subsection of § 609.345 only applies when "the actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the sexual contact." Id. at (1)(c). The complaint alleged that Mr. Carrasco "willfully, wrongfully, unlawfully, intentionally and feloniously engaged in sexual contact with another person and used force or coercion to accomplish the sexual contact." Aplee. Sealed App. at 5. The government also submitted a printout of Minnesota court records indicating that Mr. Carrasco specifically pled guilty to violating § 609.345(1)(c). See R. Doc. 17, Ex. 3.

In July 2004, Mr. Carrasco filed supplemental objections to the PSR claiming that a 16-level enhancement based on his guilty

494 F.3d 1272

plea, rather than facts admitted or found by a jury, violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The district court continued the sentencing hearing pending the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

On July 22, 2005, Mr. Carrasco appeared before the district court for sentencing. The court first sustained Mr. Carrasco's objection to two of the criminal history points assessed against him. This resulted in a total offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of V, and Mr. Carrasco's new Guideline range was 70 to 87 months' imprisonment. Then,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 practice notes
  • United States v. Henson, 19-3062
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 19, 2021
    ...an intentional decision to forgo it.").8 9 F.4th 1273 Waiver, then, "is accomplished by intent." United States v. Carrasco-Salazar , 494 F.3d 1270, 1272 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Staples , 202 F.3d 992, 995 (7th Cir. 2000) ). And where a litigant "intentionally relinquished......
  • U.S. v. West, 06-4284.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 10, 2008
    ...relief for plain error; but a party that has waived a right is not entitled to appellate relief. United States v. Carrasco-Salazar, 494 F.3d 1270, 1272 (10th Cir.2007) (citations, further quotation, alterations omitted); see United States v. Cordova-Arevalo, 456 F.3d 1229, 1231 n. 4 (10th C......
  • Cummings v. Dean, s. 17-2072 & 17-2079
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • January 24, 2019
    ...admission during oral argument, see United States v. Cooper , 654 F.3d 1104, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011) ; United States v. Carrasco-Salazar , 494 F.3d 1270, 1272–73 (10th Cir. 2007), at least insofar as the argument bears upon the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified-immunity analysis—......
  • Harris v. Sharp, 17-6109
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • October 28, 2019
    ...involves forfeiture rather than waiver, we could consider the issue under the plain-error standard. United States v. Carrasco-Salazar , 494 F.3d 1270, 1272 (10th Cir. 2007). But Mr. Harris has not argued plain error, so we would not entertain the issue even if it had been forfeited rather t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
78 cases
  • United States v. Henson, 19-3062
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 19, 2021
    ...an intentional decision to forgo it.").8 9 F.4th 1273 Waiver, then, "is accomplished by intent." United States v. Carrasco-Salazar , 494 F.3d 1270, 1272 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Staples , 202 F.3d 992, 995 (7th Cir. 2000) ). And where a litigant "intentionally relinquished......
  • U.S. v. West, 06-4284.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 10, 2008
    ...relief for plain error; but a party that has waived a right is not entitled to appellate relief. United States v. Carrasco-Salazar, 494 F.3d 1270, 1272 (10th Cir.2007) (citations, further quotation, alterations omitted); see United States v. Cordova-Arevalo, 456 F.3d 1229, 1231 n. 4 (10th C......
  • Cummings v. Dean, s. 17-2072 & 17-2079
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • January 24, 2019
    ...admission during oral argument, see United States v. Cooper , 654 F.3d 1104, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011) ; United States v. Carrasco-Salazar , 494 F.3d 1270, 1272–73 (10th Cir. 2007), at least insofar as the argument bears upon the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified-immunity analysis—......
  • Harris v. Sharp, 17-6109
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • October 28, 2019
    ...involves forfeiture rather than waiver, we could consider the issue under the plain-error standard. United States v. Carrasco-Salazar , 494 F.3d 1270, 1272 (10th Cir. 2007). But Mr. Harris has not argued plain error, so we would not entertain the issue even if it had been forfeited rather t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT