Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; November 21, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Alex Salazar appeals his sentence for forging immigration documents, specifically after being indicted on two counts of knowingly forging such documents and one count of possessing a document-making implement. He pleaded guilty to one count, with the other counts dismissed due to a plea agreement. The probation officer calculated an offense level of 13, considering a base level of 9, an upward adjustment for involving over 100 documents, and a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Salazar was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, two years' supervised release, a $1,000 fine, and a $50 special assessment.
Salazar argues that the district court erred in applying a six-level increase for offenses involving more than 100 documents, claiming that only completed I-94 forms should count as "sets" of documents. He notes that possession of blank forms is lawful and that they can be purchased publicly. The government contends that because Salazar was selling fraudulent I-94 forms, the 508 blank forms seized should indeed count as sets of documents. The court reviewed the guidelines' application de novo, deferring to the district court's factual findings unless clear error was demonstrated. The district court emphasized that Salazar was engaged in a business of selling fraudulent documents, supported by his possession of blank forms and a stamp intended for falsification. This led the court to conclude that Salazar's offense involved the intent to falsify multiple I-94 forms.
The district court's analysis is affirmed, clarifying that Salazar's offense pertains to the falsification of I-94 forms rather than mere possession of blank forms. Sentencing guidelines penalize the number of involved documents, not the number completed. Salazar's reliance on United States v. Martinez-Cano to argue that 'sets' is ambiguous is misplaced, as that case acknowledged blank documents as part of the offense. The court sees no distinction between completed and uncompleted documents. In this case, Salazar purchased over five packets of blank forms and the necessary tools for completing I-94s, indicating intent to use them for fraudulent activities. While Salazar argues that the term 'sets of documents' is vague and invokes the rule of lenity in his favor, the court finds this irrelevant, as it can clearly interpret 'documents involved.' Consequently, the judgment of sentence is affirmed. Salazar's assertions regarding the definition of a 'set' are noted, with his counsel admitting that the argument does not hinge on the number of documents needed to form a set.
