Clarifying U.S.S.G. §2L1.2 Enhancement: “Sentence Imposed” and Adequacy of Within-Guidelines Explanations

Introduction

In United States v. Carvajal-Andujar, the Tenth Circuit addressed two recurring controversies in federal sentencing under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (illegal reentry): (1) the meaning of a “sentence imposed” for purposes of the ten-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, and (2) the sufficiency of a district court’s explanation when imposing a within-Guidelines sentence.

Parties and Procedural History:
Juan Francisco Carvajal-Andujar, a Dominican national previously removed in 2022 following a 2017 Massachusetts conviction for kidnapping and indecent assault of a minor, reentered the United States without authorization in February 2024. He pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. At sentencing, the probation office applied a ten-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(3)(A), calculating his Guidelines range as 24–30 months; the district court imposed the top of that range (30 months). On appeal, Carvajal-Andujar contended (1) the enhancement was misplaced because he did not “actually serve” five years for his 2017 conviction, and (2) the court failed to adequately explain its high-end within-range sentence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed. First, it held that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(3)(A)’s ten-level enhancement turns on the maximum sentence “imposed,” not the time actually served, citing U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 comment. (n.2). Because Carvajal-Andujar’s indeterminate four-and-a-half to six-and-a-half-year term carried a six-and-a-half-year maximum, the enhancement was proper. Second, the court held the district court’s brief explanation—adopting the PSR, noting it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, stating the range, and announcing a within-Guidelines sentence—satisfied procedural reasonableness under Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent (Rita v. United States; United States v. Nunez-Carranza).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(3)(A) and Application Note 2 of § 4A1.2: Defines the sentencing enhancement and clarifies that “length of a sentence” equals the stated maximum term of imprisonment.
Rita v. United States (551 U.S. 338, 2007): Upheld a within-Guidelines sentence when the record made clear the court considered the § 3553(a) factors, even without detailed oral findings.
United States v. Nunez-Carranza (83 F.4th 1213, 2023): Reaffirmed that a district court need not elaborate on each mitigating argument when imposing a within-Guidelines sentence, provided it acknowledges the factors and the PSR.
United States v. Huyoa-Jimenez (623 F.3d 1320, 2010): Clarified that fully suspended sentences (no time served) do not qualify as “sentence imposed” for criminal-history purposes.
United States v. Garibay-Anguiano (90 F. App’x 338, 2004): Emphasized that “sentence imposed” refers to the maximum term pronounced, not actual time served.

Legal Reasoning

1. Scope of “Sentence Imposed” Under § 2L1.2. Section 2L1.2(b)(3)(A) triggers a ten-level enhancement if a defendant’s prior felony conviction carried “a sentence imposed … of five years or more.” The Guidelines cross-reference § 4A1.2, whose commentary states that the “length of a sentence” equals “the stated maximum,” and that an indeterminate term “one to five years” is counted as five years. Thus, Carvajal-Andujar’s six-and-a-half-year maximum qualified—even though he may not have served the full term—so long as he served some portion (to distinguish from fully suspended sentences).

2. Adequacy of District Court Explanation for Within-Guidelines Sentence. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), a sentencing court must state in open court its reasons for the sentence. The Supreme Court in Rita held that a brief oral explanation suffices when the record shows the judge considered the evidence, the PSR’s Guidelines calculation, and the § 3553(a) factors. The Tenth Circuit in Nunez-Carranza reinforced that a district judge need not spell out line-by-line how each mitigating argument was weighed if the court (a) acknowledges the defendant’s request for leniency, (b) confirms it has reviewed the PSR and the § 3553(a) factors, and (c) announces a within-range sentence. Here, the district court met all three steps: it invited objections, heard allocution and mitigation arguments, confirmed consideration of the PSR and § 3553(a) factors, and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence.

Impact

This decision clarifies two points that will guide district courts and practitioners:

Sentencing Enhancements: “Sentence Imposed” Clarity. Courts must apply the ten-level enhancement under § 2L1.2 based on the maximum term pronounced, not the time actually served, provided the defendant serves at least some imprisonment.
Sentencing Explanations: Brevity Permitted for Within-Range Terms. District courts retain discretion to give concise oral reasons for within-Guidelines sentences when the record as a whole shows due consideration of the PSR, the § 3553(a) factors, and the defendant’s arguments.

Going forward, defendants challenging enhancements under § 2L1.2 should focus on whether their prior terms carried a maximum under five years or were fully suspended. Those challenging procedural adequacy of a sentence must show more than a brief explanation—they must show the court did not, in fact, consider the required sentencing factors.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Indeterminate Sentence: A term expressed as a range (e.g., 4½ to 6½ years). The Guidelines treat the maximum end of that range as the “length of sentence imposed.”
Offense Level & Criminal History Category: Steps in the Guidelines’ two-dimensional grid. The total offense level (after enhancements and reductions) and the criminal history category determine the sentencing range.
Plain Error Review: When a defendant forfeits objection at sentencing, appellate courts review for obvious error that affects substantial rights and the fairness of judicial proceedings.
Procedural vs. Substantive Reasonableness: Procedural reasonableness focuses on whether the court followed required steps and explained its decision; substantive reasonableness examines the sentence’s overall fairness and proportionality.

Conclusion

United States v. Carvajal-Andujar reinforces clear, workable rules for two frequent sentencing issues: (1) when applying the U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 enhancement, judges look to the maximum term pronounced as the “sentence imposed”; and (2) a concise oral explanation will suffice for a within-Guidelines sentence if the record shows the court considered the PSR, the § 3553(a) factors, and the defendant’s arguments. This decision promotes predictability in illegal-reentry cases and underscores that substantial sentencing debates turn on substantive factfinding, not procedural technicalities.