In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1215 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FERNANDO GODINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:16-cr-00554-2 — Jorge L. Alonso, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 2019 — DECIDED APRIL 9, 2020 ____________________ Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Fernando Godinez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and to possession of a firearm in fur- therance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The Government filed an information under 21 U.S.C. § 851, advising the district court that Mr. Godinez had a prior Ohio conviction for possession of cocaine. The district court determined that this prior state conviction 2 No. 19-1215 made Mr. Godinez eligible for a mandatory minimum sen- tence of ten years’ imprisonment rather than the otherwise applicable five-year mandatory minimum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2010). Mr. Godinez now submits that, at the time of sentencing, the district court—and both parties—misapprehended the legal consequences of the Government’s filing the § 851 in- formation. Specifically, he submits that the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (the “First Step Act”), enacted after the signing of Mr. Godinez’s plea agreement but before his sentencing, rendered invalid both the infor- mation and the increased penalties it carried. In his view, the district court should not have characterized his previous Ohio conviction as a conviction for “possession with intent to distribute” cocaine, the qualifying requirement for the ten-year mandatory minimum. Therefore, Mr. Godinez submits, he is not subject to the higher mandatory mini- mum. Mr. Godinez is correct. By failing to recognize the chang- es implemented by the First Step Act, the district court premised its sentencing calculations on a mandatory mini- mum that was twice what it should have been. This over- sight constitutes plain error and requires that Mr. Godinez be resentenced. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case to the district court for sentencing. I. BACKGROUND In 2016, federal agents arrested Mr. Godinez and his brother Adan Godinez (“Adan”) during a controlled drug No. 19-1215 3 purchase. The brothers previously had arranged to sell ap- proximately two kilograms of cocaine to an undercover of- ficer in a mall parking lot. At the scene, both brothers were armed; Mr. Godinez also came prepared with extra ammuni- tion. When law enforcement officers surrounded Mr. Godinez, he surrendered without resistance. Adan, who was in a separate car, did not. He exchanged fire with the officers and was wounded before his apprehension. Mr. Godinez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (“Count One”), and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). 1 Under ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals