United States of America v. Jose Castro Mosqueda, a.k.a. Jose Lopez, a.k.a. Jose Gonzales Mosqueda, a.k.a.…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE CASTRO MOSQUEDA, a.k.a. Jose
Lopez, a.k.a. Jose Gonzales Mosqueda,
a.k.a. Javier Castro Mosqueda,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50244
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01259-RGK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Castro Mosqueda appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United
FILED
JAN 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-50244 2
States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
The district court applied a 12-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) based on Mosqueda’s alleged 1994 drug trafficking
conviction. Mosqueda disputed that he was convicted. In applying the
enhancement, the district court appeared to rely on the presentence report and a
state docket reflecting the 1994 conviction. The only evidence in the record on
appeal of Mosqueda’s alleged conviction for possession of cocaine base for sale is
the contested presentence report, which is insufficient to support the enhancement.
See United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2008) (when a defendant
objects to a presentence report’s factual findings, the court may not simply rely on
the factual statements in the PSR to find that the government has carried its
burden).
Because the state docket is not part of the district court or appellate record,
we are unable to determine precisely what information the district court relied on
in making its determination. We consequently are unable to determine whether
that information was properly relied on, and whether the 12-level enhancement was
supported by clear and convincing evidence. See United States v. Jordan, 256 F.3d
922, 928 (9th Cir. 2001) (where factual findings underlying a sentencing

-- 2 of 3 --

10-50244 3
enhancement create a “disproportionate impact” on the defendant’s sentence, those
findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence).
Accordingly, we remand for further findings to clarify the basis of the
district court’s application of the sentencing enhancement, and for the district court
to determine whether the government met its burden of proving the sentencing
enhancement applies under the clear and convincing standard.
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062
(9th Cir. 2000), upon remand the district court is instructed to delete from the
judgment the reference to section 1326(b). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,
232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to
section 1326(b)).
We need not reach Mosqueda’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness
of his sentence in light of our disposition.
VACATED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --