Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0788-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gonzalo ANAYA-SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50236.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 20, 2012.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Randy K. Jones, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gonzalo Anaya-Santiago appeals from the 6S-month sentence imposed following his bench-trial conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Anaya-Santiago contends that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) because his conviction under Indiana Code § 35-42-4-3(b) does not qualify as sexual abuse of a minor under Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). The district court correctly determined that the Indiana conviction constituted sexual abuse of a minor warranting the 16-level enhancement. See United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 513-16 (9th Cir.2009). We reject Anaya-Santiago’s argument that Medina-Villa is no longer good law.

Anaya-Santiago also contends that he was subject to the 2-year statutory maximum of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), rather than the 20-year maximum of section 1326(b)(2), because the Supreme Court implicitly overruled Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), in Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009), and United States v. O’Brien, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2169, 176 L.Ed.2d 979 (2010). We have previously considered and rejected this argument. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920-21 & n. 11 (9th Cir.2011).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.