Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX.
For FREDI J. SEGOVIA, also known as Edys Geovanny Segovia-Segovia, Defendant - Appellant: Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX.
Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:
Fredi J. Segovia, a citizen of El Salvador, pleaded guilty to being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after having been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court adopted the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and sentenced Segovia to 51 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. On appeal, Segovia contends that the district court erred by applying a sixteen-level enhancement for a prior conviction for a crime of violence (COV). Finding no merit in Segovia's contentions, we affirm.
The district court's characterization of a prior offense as a COV is a question of law we typically review de novo. United States v. Stoker, 706 F.3d 643, 646 (5th Cir. 2013). However, because Segovia did not raise his challenge to the sixteen-level enhancement in the district court, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2012). " Plain error review requires four determinations: whether there was error at all; whether it was plain or obvious; whether the defendant has been substantially harmed by the error; and whether this court should exercise its discretion to correct the error in
order to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice." Id. at 497. Because we find no error in the district court's ruling, we need not proceed beyond the first step of plain error review.
Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) provides for a sixteen-level enhancement of a defendant's base offense level if he previously was deported after a conviction for a COV. The district court applied this enhancement to Segovia because Segovia was previously deported after a Maryland conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon. Segovia did not object to the enhancement in the district court.
On appeal, Segovia mounts a three-pronged attack. First, Segovia argues that his conspiracy conviction cannot support a COV enhancement because conspiracy under Maryland law is broader than the generic, contemporary meaning of " conspiracy." Second, Segovia claims that the object of his conspiracy, robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, is not a COV because robbery under Maryland law is broader than the generic, contemporary definition of " robbery." Third, he contends that conspiracy is not a COV because the ...