US v. Mario Alvarez-Aldana

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:12-cr-00078-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999296131].. [13-4094]

Appeal: 13-4094

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4094

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARIO ALVAREZ-ALDANA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00078-D-1)

Submitted:

January 30, 2014

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

February 12, 2014

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4094

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
In 2002 Mario Alvarez-Aldana entered no contest pleas
in North Carolina state court to two counts of taking indecent
liberties with a minor.

In October 2012 Alvarez-Aldana pled

guilty to illegal reentry of an aggravated felon, under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012), and was sentenced to forty-one months
of

imprisonment,

the

bottom

of

his

advisory

Sentencing

Guidelines range.
On

appeal,

Alvarez-Aldana

contests

his

Sentencing

Guidelines range enhancement of sixteen levels because his North
Carolina convictions for taking indecent liberties with a child
were

considered

crimes

of

violence

under

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2012), arguing
that the enhancement as applied to non-citizens is a violation
of equal protection.

In assessing a challenge to a district

court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review the
court’s

factual

findings

conclusions de novo.

for

clear

error

and

its

legal

United States v. Sosa–Carabantes, 561 F.3d

256, 259 (4th Cir. 2009).
The

Equal

Protection

Clause

of

the

Fourteenth

Amendment prohibits “governmental decisionmakers from treating
differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike.”
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992) (citation omitted).
“To

succeed

on

an

equal

protection
2

claim,

a

[claimant]

must

Appeal: 13-4094

Doc: 32

first

Filed: 02/12/2014

demonstrate

that

he

Pg: 3 of 5

has

been

treated

differently

from

others with whom he is similarly situated and that the unequal
treatment

was

the

discrimination.”
Cir. 2001).
the

court

result

of

intentional

or

purposeful

Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 654 (4th

If a claimant succeeds in making such a showing,
must

determine

whether

the

under the requisite level of scrutiny.

disparity

is

justified

Id.

The Sentencing Guidelines may properly be challenged
on equal protection grounds, and the “relevant test is whether
the

classification

is

government interest.”
1089,

1091

challenge

(9th

to

rationally

§

to

a

legitimate

United States v. Ruiz-Chairez, 493 F.3d

Cir.

USSG

related

2007)

(addressing

2L1.2(b)(1)(A))

equal

(citations

protection

and

internal

quotation omitted); see United States v. D’Anjou, 16 F.3d 604,
612 (4th Cir. 1994) (applying rational basis test to Guidelines
equal protection challenge).

Rational basis review does not

require the court to identify Congress’ actual rationale for the
distinction.
‘plausible
Commc’ns,

The
reasons’

Inc.,

508

statute
for
U.S.

will

be

Congress’
307,

upheld

action.”

313-14

(1993)

if
FCC

“there
v.

(quoting

States R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 179 (1980)).

are
Beach

United
The

burden is on the one raising the equal protection challenge to
negate

“every

conceivable

basis

3

which

might

support

it[.]”

Appeal: 13-4094

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 4 of 5

Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320 (1993) (citation and internal
quotation omitted).
We have reviewed Alvarez-Aldana’s arguments on appeal
and conclude that he has failed to establish any violation under
the Equal Protection Clause.

See Ruiz-Chairez, 493 F.3d at 1091

(denying equal protection challenge to § 2L1.2 on rational basis
review,

finding

that

“enhancement

serves

the

legitimate

government interest of deterring illegal reentry by those who
have committed drug-related and violent crimes”); United States
v. Adeleke, 968 F.2d 1159, 1160-61 (11th Cir. 1992) (rejecting
equal

protection

argument

that

§

2L1.2

effectively

punishes

illegal reentrants, and not citizens, twice for the same crime).
Moreover, the burden is on Alvarez-Aldana to negate any basis
which might support the enhancement, see Heller, 509 U.S. at
320, and he has failed to meet this burden.
States

v.

Perez-Perez,

737

F.3d

950,

952

See also United
(4th

Cir.

2013)

(finding that taking indecent liberties with a minor under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14–202.1(a) qualified categorically as sexual abuse
of a minor and therefore was a crime of violence within the
meaning of USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)).
Accordingly, we affirm Alvarez-Aldana’s sentence.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

4

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 13-4094

Doc: 32

contentions

are

Filed: 02/12/2014

adequately

Pg: 5 of 5

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5