United States v. Ignacio Ortiz-Correa


Case: 19-12979 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-12979 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:19-cr-00016-WMR-WEJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus IGNACIO ORTIZ-CORREA, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (December 19, 2019) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ignacio Ortiz-Correa appeals his 12-month prison sentence, imposed for illegally reentering the United States after having been previously deported. On appeal, he argues that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable Case: 19-12979 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 2 of 6 sentence because, in calculating his offense level, it applied an eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(3)(B) after finding that Ortiz-Correa was previously convicted of a crime for which he received a two-year sentence. After thorough review, we affirm. In the context of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review purely legal questions de novo and the district court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). “For a finding to be clearly erroneous, [we] must be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quotations omitted). A defendant convicted of illegally reentering the United States receives an eight-level enhancement if the defendant was ordered removed and was subsequently convicted of a crime for which the sentence imposed was two years or more. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(3)(B). A defendant convicted of illegally reentering the United States receives a four-level enhancement if the defendant was ordered removed and was subsequently convicted of a crime for which the sentence imposed was less than one year and one month. Id. § 2L1.2(b)(3)(C)-(D). The term “sentence imposed” carries the same meaning as “sentence of imprisonment” in § 4A1.2(b) and that section’s Application Note 2. Id. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.2). “[S]entence of imprisonment” is defined as: “(1) . . . a sentence of incarceration and refers to the maximum sentence imposed. (2) If part of a sentence 2 Case: 19-12979 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 3 of 6 of imprisonment was suspended, ‘sentence of imprisonment’ refers only to the portion that was not suspended.” Id. § 4A1.2(b). Furthermore, [t]o qualify as a sentence of imprisonment, the defendant must have actually served a period of imprisonment on such sentence . . . . For the purposes of applying §4A1.1(a), (b), or (c), the length of a sentence of imprisonment is the stated maximum (e.g., in the case of a determinate sentence of five years, the stated maximum is five years; in the case of an indeterminate sentence of one to five years, the stated maximum is five years; in the case of an indeterminate sentence for a term not to exceed five years, the stated maximum is five years . . . . That is, criminal history points are based on the sentence pronounced, not the length of time actually served. See §4A1.2(b)(1) and (2). Id. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals