United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 319 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 319 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez, 488 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2007) · Strongest negative: United States v. Martinez-Candejas, 347 F.3d 853 (10th Cir. 2003)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 678 Determining guideline enhancement scope beyond indictment charges7 citing casesrejecting the "categorical approach" for purposes of applying the 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii)1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez, 488 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2007).published 6 cites
    (rejecting the "categorical approach" for purposes of applying the 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii))
  • United States v. Castillo-Penaloza, 164 F. App'x 523 (5th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    He conceded that those contentions were foreclosed by United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 319 F.3d 677, 678 (5th Cir. 2003), and United States v. Solis-Campozano, 312 F.3d 164, 167-68 (5th Cir. 2002).
  • United States v. Loredo-Torres, 164 F. App'x 523 (5th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    He conceded that those contentions were foreclosed by United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 319 F.3d 677, 678 (5th Cir.2003), and United States v. Solis-Campozano, 312 F.3d 164, 167-68 (5th Cir.2002).
  • United States v. Loredo-Torres, 110 F. App'x 445 (5th Cir. 2004).unpublished
    He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 319 F.3d 677, 678 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 540 U.S. 918 , 124 S.Ct. 311 , 157 L.Ed.2d 213 (2003), which held that, to determine whether a defendant’s prior con…
  • United States v. Becerra-Rodriguez, 72 F. App'x 235 (5th Cir. 2003).unpublished
    United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 319 F.3d 677, 678 (5th Cir.2003).
  • United States v. Lopez-Moreno, No. 02-41633 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2003).unpublished
    See United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 319 F.3d 677, 678 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Rodriguez-Duberney, __ F.3d __, 2003 WL 1505935, *2-3 (5th Cir. March 25, 2003).
  • United States v. Sanchez-Loredo, 274 F. Supp. 2d 873 (S.D. Tex. 2003).published
    Compare Rodriguez-Duberney, 326 F.3d at 616-17 (rejecting categorical approach regarding U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i)) and Sanchez-Garcia, 319 F.3d at 678 (eschewing categorical approach with reference to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(vii)) wi…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jose SANCHEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
02-40827.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 24, 2003.
Published opinion
319 F.3d 677
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1058
2003 WL 164156
Tony Ray Roberts, McAllen, TX, James Lee Turner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Roland E. Dahlin, II, Fed. Pub. Def., Rudy Xavier Rodriguez, Molly E. Odom, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Jose Sanchez-Garcia (Sanchez) appeals the sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for being found in the United States after a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He argues that the district court erred in going beyond the statute of conviction and the charging instrument to determine that a 16-level increase in his offense level was warranted under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(vii). He contends that the reasoning from our decisions interpreting the “career offender” guidelines, U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2, should be applied, which limit consideration to the conduct charged in the indictment, rather than the underlying conduct of the offense. See, United States v. Gaitan, 954 F.2d 1005, 1009-11 (5th Cir.1992); United States v. Fitzhugh, 954 F.2d 253, 254-55 (5th Cir.1992).

Our holdings in Gaitan and Fitzhugh were based on specific language contained in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, limiting the sentencing court’s inquiry to the conduct alleged in the indictment in determining whether the enhancement applies. Neither U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 nor its commentary contains such limiting language. -Furthermore, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 instructs that when determining the defendant’s “specific offense characteristics” under Chapter Two of the Guidelines, “[c]onduct that is not formally charged or is not an element of the offense of conviction may enter into the determination of the applicable guideline sentencing range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, comment, (backg’d). We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not misapply U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(vii).

Sanchez also contends that the sentence-enhancing provisions contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.