USA v. PEREZ-PEREZ
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. PEREZ-PEREZ, No. 06-30341, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Betty Binns Fletcher, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.
GOULD, Circuit Judge:
Aroldo Perez-Perez was arrested in Seattle, Washington on February 7, 2006, and charged with illegal re-entry after being deported in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Perez-Perez waived indictment and pleaded guilty on March 8, 2006. In his plea agreement, he acknowledged that a previous conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine was an aggravated felony subjecting him to a twenty-year enhancement of the maximum potential sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2). Perez-Perez also admitted that he had been deported from the United States on two previous occasions, most recently on or about January 4, 2005, after serving his sentence for eluding examination and inspection by immigration officers in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2). The record also shows that Appellant has previous convictions for the possession or sale of cocaine in California and Washington State. The district court conducted a sentencing hearing on June 5, 2006. The U.S. Probation Office recommended a sentence of 63-78 months based on the base offense level, PerezPerez’s criminal history and acceptance of responsibility, and a downward departure for Perez-Perez’s participation in the district’s immigration “fast track” program. The probation office’s final recommendation was for 62 months and two weeks, reflecting a bottom-of-the-guideline sentence of 63 months minus two weeks for time served. Perez-Perez concurred in the calculation as a part of his plea agreement. In his Sentencing Memorandum, Perez-Perez requested that the district court reduce the sentence to within a range of 4657 months in light of several factors that he claimed were relevant under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, Perez-Perez argued that his prior felony drug offense was de minimis in nature, that his current arrest was improper under the Fourth . . .