Case ID: f-appx_377/html/0637-01.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. Rodolfo Rivas PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50067.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 22, 2010.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James H. Locklin, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, 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

Rodolfo Rivas Perez appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Rivas Perez contends that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 because his prior conviction for lewd acts with a child under 14 years of age, in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a), does not qualify as a crime of violence. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 511-16 (9th Cir.2009).

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

Rivas Perez’s petition for initial hearing en banc is denied.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as pi'ovid-ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.