Case ID: f-appx_234/html/0779-01.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. Carlos Andres COSS-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10115.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 9, 2007.
    
    Filed July 13, 2007.
    Elizabeth R. Berenguer, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Douglas R. Zanes, Esq., Doug Zanes & Associates, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Andres Coss-Vasquez appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Coss-Vasquez contends that the district court plainly erred by concluding that his prior California conviction for throwing a substance at a vehicle was a “crime of violence” pursuant to USSG § 4B1.2. Because we conclude that Cal.Veh.Code § 23110(b) contains as one of its elements the use of physical force against another, we reject this contention. See United States v. Grajeda-Ramirez, 348 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir.2003).

Coss-Vasquez also contends that the district court erred by failing to depart downward based on over-representation of his criminal history and cultural assimilation. Because Coss-Vasquez failed to raise the issue of over-representation of criminal history before the district court, it is deemed waived. See United States v. Quesada, 972 F.2d 281, 283-84 (9th Cir. 1992). A review of the record establishes that the district court took into account the appropriate sentencing factors, including cultural assimilation, and that the sentence imposed is not unreasonable. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

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