Cruz Torres-Gonzalez was convicted in 2024 of illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. At his 2024 sentencing, the district court applied two enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines. The first was a four-level enhancement for his prior 2014 illegal reentry conviction. The second, which is the subject of this appeal, was an eight-level enhancement based on a prior 2014 conviction for making false statements to federal officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. In 2014, Torres-Gonzalez had been convicted of both illegal reentry and making false statements. He received a 35-month sentence on each count, to be served concurrently. The district court applied the eight-level enhancement because the 35-month sentence for the false-statement offense exceeded the two-year threshold required by U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(3)(B). Torres-Gonzalez argued that because the two 2014 counts were grouped under the Guidelines, the sentence for the false-statement offense was effectively 'controlled' or 'replaced' by the sentence for the illegal reentry offense. He contended that the court should have applied a lower four-level enhancement instead, arguing that the actual sentence length did not reflect the seriousness of the false-statement offense alone.
The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Christen, affirmed the sentence by focusing on the plain text of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(3). The guideline mandates an enhancement based on the length of the sentence imposed for a prior non-reentry felony conviction. The court rejected Torres-Gonzalez's contention that the grouping rules rendered the sentence for the false-statement offense indeterminate or 'replaced' by the reentry sentence. The panel explained that while the charges were grouped and the total punishment applied concurrently, the defendant did receive a specific 35-month sentence for the false-statement conviction. The court noted that the Sentencing Commission adopted the sentence-based enhancement approach to simplify the process and avoid complex categorical analyses. The history and purpose of the Guidelines support using the actual sentence length as a proxy for the seriousness of the prior offense, even if that sentence was influenced by the grouping of a more serious charge. The court found no ambiguity in the text that would trigger the rule of lenity or require deference to the Sentencing Commission's commentary. Application Note 4 to § 2L1.2 clarifies that when a defendant is sentenced simultaneously for reentry and other felonies, the reentry offense counts toward one enhancement and the other felony counts toward another, provided the other felony would independently score criminal history points. The court concluded that the district court correctly applied the text of the Guidelines.
The decision clarifies that for illegal reentry sentencing, the actual sentence length imposed for a prior non-reentry felony triggers the enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(3), even if that sentence was determined through concurrent sentencing with a prior illegal reentry conviction. Defendants can no longer argue that grouping rules obscure the sentence length for the purpose of calculating enhancements. The ruling limits the application of the rule of lenity in this context and confirms that the Sentencing Commission's commentary supports the district court's interpretation. The case was affirmed, leaving the 51-month sentence in place.