Case ID: f-appx_166/html/0975-01.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. Richard William ROGERS, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-50076.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 8, 2006.
    
    Decided Feb. 15, 2006.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., Joey L. Blanch, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Vicki Marolt Buchanan, Esq., Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: THOMPSON, TROTT, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

We assume without deciding Rogers did not waive the right to appeal his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds. The Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to find the facts underlying the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Dare, 425 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir.2005).

Whoever violates 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5) shall be “imprisoned for not less than 10 years,” “if such person has a prior conviction ... under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor.” 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2). Rogers’ prior conviction for violating California Penal Code section 288(a) constitutes “sexual abuse of a minor.” See United States v. Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir.1999). It, therefore, also constitutes “sexual abuse ... involving a minor.” 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.