United States v. David Martinez

Citations: 232 F.3d 728; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9192; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 12219; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 29132; 2000 WL 1707928Docket: 99-50659

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; November 16, 2000; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

David Martinez appeals his sentence after being convicted for the importation of marijuana, arguing that the Government did not sufficiently demonstrate that he imported more than fifty kilograms of marijuana or that he had the necessary prior controlled substance convictions to be classified as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. On February 11, 1999, border agents discovered 22 packages of marijuana weighing a total of 60.6 kilograms in Martinez's truck. Following a two-count indictment on March 10, 1999, Martinez filed a motion to preserve evidence, which he later withdrew, subsequently pleading guilty to one count of marijuana importation without a plea agreement.

During the plea hearing, Martinez acknowledged the maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment and confirmed that he intentionally imported approximately 60.6 kilograms of marijuana. The Presentence Report (PSR) recommended a ten percent reduction in the marijuana weight due to packaging, resulting in a net weight of 54.4 kilograms, corresponding to a base offense level of 20 under the Guidelines. However, the PSR also recommended sentencing Martinez as a career offender based on his two prior convictions. This classification raised his base offense level to 32, as the Guidelines dictate that a career offender's level is tied to the statutory maximum sentence for the current offense. The statutory maximum for importing between 50-100 kilograms of marijuana is twenty years.

Martinez pled guilty to approximately 60 kilograms of marijuana but contested the amount attributed to him in the Presentence Report (PSR) and the classification of his 1996 California conviction under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) as a 'controlled substance' offense relevant for career offender status. The district court, using a standard ten percent packaging reduction and considering Martinez's statements during his plea, concluded he imported over 50 kilograms of marijuana. The court classified Martinez as a career offender, determining that his 1996 conviction for violating California Health and Safety Code § 11360(a) qualified as a predicate offense. This determination was based on the language of the statute and documents from the conviction, particularly a plea form where Martinez acknowledged transporting marijuana across the border.

In sentencing, the court accepted the PSR's findings regarding career offender status, setting Martinez's base offense level at 32, which was then adjusted to 27 after deducting levels for acceptance of responsibility and other circumstances. Although the guidelines suggested a criminal history category of VI, the court opted for a category III, resulting in a sentencing range of 87 to 108 months, with Martinez receiving the minimum sentence of 87 months.

On appeal, Martinez argues that the government failed to establish his 1996 conviction as a predicate offense for career offender status and that the evidence did not support the claim of importing over 50 kilograms of marijuana. If successful, he could face a significantly reduced sentence of as few as 24 months. The appeal focuses on the definition of a 'controlled substances' offense, specifically whether his conviction qualifies as 'importing' marijuana, which the government claims it does, while Martinez contends it was merely for transportation. The resolution hinges on interpreting the scope of the 'import' category in the controlled substance definition and the applicability of Martinez's conviction to that definition.

A uniform national definition is essential for determining whether a state conviction qualifies as a predicate offense for federal sentencing enhancements, as established in Taylor v. United States. This principle ensures consistency across jurisdictions, preventing disparate interpretations that could undermine federal legislation. For example, the Supreme Court had to define 'burglary' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) to assess whether a state conviction met the federal criteria, illustrating that state definitions could vary significantly.

In applying this approach to the term 'import' under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b), it is concluded that 'import' refers specifically to the act of bringing controlled substances across international borders. This interpretation aligns with the common understanding of the term and is supported by the language of the relevant federal statute, 21 U.S.C. § 952, which explicitly prohibits importing drugs into the United States from outside its borders. The absence of clarity regarding whether California's law, Section 11360, aligns with this definition does not alter the outcome, as federal definitions prevail in matters of federal recidivism statutes.

Applying the categorical approach to Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11360(a) involves assessing the statutory definition of the crime to determine if a prior conviction supports career offender status, rather than examining the defendant's specific actions. Relevant documents such as the indictment, judgment of conviction, and plea transcripts may be considered to clarify whether the offense qualifies as a predicate conviction for enhancement. If the statute allows for convictions not defined as qualifying offenses under the Guidelines, the prior conviction cannot be counted toward career offender status.

Section 11360(a) criminalizes the transportation or importation of marijuana, with penalties ranging from two to four years of imprisonment. Martinez contends that his 1996 conviction under this section does not qualify as a 'controlled substance offense' since he was only convicted for transportation, which he argues does not meet the Guidelines' definition. However, the district judge interpreted the conviction as an importing offense. While a conviction for importing marijuana may qualify as a controlled substance offense under the career criminal guideline, the statute encompasses both transportation and importation. The term 'transports' does not inherently imply crossing an international border, and the inclusion of 'imports into California' indicates that transportation and importation are distinct concepts within the statute. Thus, 'transports' must have a different meaning from 'imports' under this context.

The Government argues that judicially noticeable documents indicate Martinez was convicted for importing marijuana, not transporting it. The complaint charged him with unlawfully importing and transporting over 28.5 grams of marijuana, and his plea form included a statement about transporting marijuana across the border. However, there is no judicially noticeable evidence confirming a conviction for importation; instead, Martinez pled guilty to transportation, as reflected in both his handwritten plea form and the typed judgment, which specifically mentions "transport" but not "import." This suggests he was not convicted of importing marijuana into California, where "transporting into California" could refer to transportation from states like Oregon or Arizona, which do not fall under the federal "import" definition relevant to career criminal guidelines.

The argument that his statement in the plea form about transporting marijuana across borders proves a conviction for importing is deemed irrelevant under the categorical approach, which focuses on the formal conviction rather than underlying conduct. The plea context suggests Martinez admitted only to transporting marijuana into California, which does not imply international transport.

Consequently, since the judicial facts do not support a conviction for an offense defined by the career criminal guideline, Martinez does not qualify as a career offender under the Guidelines. The district court's decision to set his base offense level according to the career offender schedule was therefore incorrect. Martinez pled guilty to a violation of federal law regarding bringing marijuana into the U.S., admitting to transporting approximately 60 kilograms, but the government acknowledges that at least 10% of this weight was packaging. Thus, for sentencing purposes, his base offense level without the career offender enhancement would be 20. Martinez reserved the right to appeal only the career offender enhancement and did not contest the quantity of marijuana for his conviction, leaving no grounds to review the district court's acceptance of the 10% packaging figure.

The district court's designation of Martinez as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines is reversed, and the case is remanded for resentencing. Martinez argues that, based on the Supreme Court's decision in *Apprendi v. New Jersey*, the government was required to charge and prove that he imported over 50 kilograms of marijuana. However, this issue is not addressed at this stage, as the potential prejudice from the alleged Apprendi error can only be assessed after resentencing. If Martinez receives a sentence below five years, any error would be inconsequential.

Martinez's base offense level, without the career offender enhancement, was determined to be 20, while the district court assigned a criminal history category of III, contrary to the government's suggestion of IV. Assuming the district court maintains the same adjustments for acceptance of responsibility, his offense level would be 15, translating to a guideline range of 24-30 months.

The district court found no evidence that Martinez's 1996 conviction involved the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance, which are necessary for career criminal status under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Although the government's argument suggests the term "import" was omitted due to space limitations on the judgment form, the choice of "transport" raises questions about the nature of the plea, indicating it was likely for transporting rather than importing.

Judge Trott dissents on the issue of whether Martinez's conviction qualifies as a career offender status, asserting that the conviction for violating California Health and Safety Code § 11360(a) does involve importing marijuana. He supports the district court's conclusion that the federal career offender enhancement was appropriate based on the nature of the state law offense, and concurs with the majority in all other respects.