Case ID: f-appx_436/html/0793-01.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. Leticia Llaguno RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50300.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 8, 2011.
    Mark R. Rehe, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leticia Llaguno Rodriguez appeals from the 42-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea 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.

Rodriguez contends that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level enhancement, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, because her prior conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age, in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 288(a), does not qualify as a crime of violence. She contends that United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 511-16 (9th Cir.2009), holding that a violation of CaLPenal Code § 288(a) is categorically a crime of violence, is inconsistent with Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). This contention lacks merit. See United States v. Farmer, 627 F.3d 416, 421-22 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we decline Rodriguez’s invitation that we seek en banc review of this issue.

Rodriguez also contends that Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009), effectively overruled Medinar-Villa. This contention fails.

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