No: 02-1700 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VINCIA RIVIERE; a/k/a Vincia Jno Baptiste Vincia Riviere

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 02-1700
_______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
VINCIA RIVIERE;
a/k/a
Vincia Jno Baptiste
Vincia Riviere,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 01-cr-00047)
District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on December 2, 2002
Before: ROTH, SMITH, Circuit Judges
CUDAHY*, Circuit Judge
(Opinion filed: January 31, 2003)
* Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Circuit Court Judge for the Seventh Circuit,
sitting by designation.
O P I N I O N
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Vincia Riviere appeals the judgment of sentence of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware. On November 13, 2001, Riviere pled guilty to one
count of illegally reentering the country after having been deported for an aggravated
felony conviction in Florida. On February 25, 2002, after denying Riviere’s objection to
the criminal history calculation in the Presentence Report, the District Court sentenced
her to 37 months imprisonment for violating 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2).
We have jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C.
3742(a)(2). We review sentencing guideline calculations for plain error.
In her appeal, Riviere contends that the District Court erred in adding three points
to her criminal history calculation for her prior Florida conviction. Riviere argues that the
previous Florida conviction was rendered in absentia, violating her constitutional rights,

-- 1 of 2 --

and therefore is void.
This constitutional challenge to the Florida conviction was never made in the
Florida courts. In Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994), the United States
Supreme Court held that, with the sole exception of convictions obtained in violation of
the right to counsel, a defendant in a federal sentencing proceeding has no right to
collaterally attack the validity of previous state convictions that are used to enhance the
federal sentence. Id. at 497; United States v. Escobales, 218 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000). For
that reason, Riviere cannot now collaterally attack her Florida conviction which enhances
her federal sentence here. If Riviere had wished to challenge the constitutionality of her
Florida conviction, she had to do so in the Florida courts.
The District Court correctly applied U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(a) when it added three
criminal history points for Riviere’s prior conviction in Florida.
For the foregoing reason, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
By the Court,
/s/ Jane R. Roth
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --