N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ANTONIO M IGUEL-M AR IANO, AKA Antonio M igua l -M aria

no, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50240

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-03009-JAH-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. Houston, Distric

t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, TASHIM A , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Antonio M igue l-M arian o wa s c onvic te d of ille g a lly re e nte ring the Unite d Stat e s unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1326. He ha s a pre vious Ne va da c onvic t ion for c oe rc ion unde r Ne v. R e v. Stat. § 207.190. In dete rm ining M igue l-M ariano’ s se nte n c e for 

# FIL ED DEC 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.the i lle ga l re e ntry c o nvic tion, thedistric t c ourt tre ate d the pre vious c onvic tion a s a

“ c rim e of viole nc e ” unde r the Se nte nc ing Guide line s (“ Guide line s” ), se e U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), a

nd a pplie d a 16-le ve l se nte n c e e nha

nc e m e nt. M igue l -M ariano c ha lle nge s the a

pplic ation of tha

t e nha nc e m e nt. W e va c ate an d re m a n d for re
se nte nc ing. 1. To de t e rm i ne whe t

he r M igue l -M a

ria no’ s c onvic tion for c oe rc ion qua lifie s a s a c rim e of viole nc e unde r the Guide line s a nd c an the re fore susta in the se nte nc e e nha nc e m e nt, we a

pply the c ate goric a l a

pproa c h outline d in Tay lor v
. Unite d State s , 495 U.S. 575 (1990). A sta te c onvic tion c an support a n e nha nc e m e nt unde r the G uide line s only

if the de finition of the

sta te c rim e m atc he s , or is na rrowe r tha

n, the d e finition of the

c rim e ide ntifie d in the Guide l ine s a s justify ing the se nte nc e e nha nc e m e nt. Se e id. at 599–601. The pa rtie s a gre e tha

t M igue l-M ariano’ s pre vious c onvic tion qua l ifie s a s a

“ c rim e of viole nc e ” unde r the Guide line s if it “ha s a s a n e le m e nt the use , atte m

pte d
use , or thre ate n e d use of phy sic a l forc e a ga inst thepe rson of a nothe r.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, c m

t. n.1(B )(iii). W e hav e he ld tha t “ phy sic a l forc e ” a s de sc ribe d in the Guide line s “ m

u s t be v iole nt

forc e
— that is, forc e c a

pa ble of c a using phy sic a l pa in or injury to a n o the r pe rson.” U

n ite d State

s v . Domingue

z-Maroy o qui , 748 F.3d

2918, 921 (9th C ir. 2014) (e m pha sis in origina

l) (c ita t ions a nd quota tion m arks
om i tte d). Give n tha t M igue l-M a

riano wa s c onvic te d of fe lony c oe rc ion, his c onvic tion inc l ude d a

n e le m e nt of “phy sic a l forc e ,” a s de fine d by Ne va da la w. NR S § 207.190(2)(a ). Ne va da ’ s de finition of “ phy sic a l forc e ” a s use d in NR S § 207.190, howe v e r, is broa de r tha

n the d e finition of “

phy sic a l forc e ” a s use d in the Guide line s. W

hile the Guide line s re quire “ v iole nt forc e . . . c a

pa ble of c a using phy sic a l pa in or injury ,” Domingue z-Maroy oqui , 748 F.3d a

t 921, “ p hy sic a l forc e ” in Ne va da

la wc an inc l ude nonviole nt deminimis forc e . Se e Hobbs v . State , 251 P.3d 177, 180 (Ne v. 2011). Although weare aware of no c a se s inte rpre ting thete rm “ p hy sic a l forc e ” a s use d in the c oe rc ion sta

tute , Ne va da

la w de fine s phy s ic a l forc e “ m uc h m ore broa dly in othe r c o n te xts.” 1 Se e Unite d State s v . W e rle , 815 F.3d 614, 621 (9th C ir. 2016) (noting tha

t a sta te supre m e c o urt ha d not inte rpre te d the word “ forc e ” in the pa rtic ula r stat ute giving riseto a

fe de ra l se nte nc e e nha

n c e m e n t a

nd
c onside ring the word’ s use in a nothe r c rim i na l sta

tute to de t e rm ine its sc ope ).

1 Ne va da follows therule tha

t “ whe n the sa m e word is use d

in diffe re nt sta tute s tha t a re sim ila r with re s pe c t to purposeand c onte nt, the word will beuse d in the sa m e se nse , unle ss the sta

tute ’ s c onte x t indic ate s othe rwise [.] ” Sav agev . Pie r son , 157 P.3d 697, 702 (Nev. 2007) (e n ba nc ). 3B atte ry , for e xam ple , “ re quire s phy sic a l forc e or viole nc e ” in Ne va da
. Este s v . State , 146 P.3d 1114, 1128 (Ne v. 2006). Ye t unde r that de finition of tha t c rim e , the N e va d a

Supre m e C ourt c onc lude d tha t e ve n “ slight”forc e , suc h a s inte ntiona lly

“ spitting on a

nothe r” c an support a

batte ry c onvic t ion. H

o bbs , 251 P.3d at 180; se e also By ars v . State , 336 P.3d 939, 949 (Nev. 2014) (upholding batte ry c onvic t ion whe re de fe nda nt “ use d forc e upon a

nothe r, howe v e r slight.” ). The re is thus a “ re a listic proba bility ” tha t a Ne va da de fe nda nt c ould be
c onvic te d of fe lony

c oe rc ion unde r NR S § 207.190 without e nga ging in viole

nt phy sic a l forc e . Se e Gonzale s v . Due nas-Alv are

z , 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007). As a
re sult, NR S § 207.190 is c at e goric a l ly ove rbroa d

a s to the Se nte nc ing Guide line s and c annot justify the 16-le ve l se nte nc e e nha nc e m e nt, unle ss a s a

re sult of the
a pplic ation of the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h. 2. The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t Se c tions 1(a), 1(b), a

nd 1(c ) of NR S § 207.190 c re ate thre e divisible fe lonie s , a

nd the re fore we m ay

a pply the m odifie d
c ate goric a l a

pproa c h to de te rm ine whic h of the thre e e le m e n t se t s unde rlay M igue l-M ariano’ s c onvic tion. Se e De sc amps v . Unite d State

s , 133 S. C t. 2276, 2281 (2013). Apply

ing the ir a pproa c h, the gove rnm e nt a rgue s tha t M igue lM aria no wa s c onvic te d unde r Se c t ion 1(c ). Eve n a ssum ing the c ate g oric a l
a pproa c h a pplie s, Se c tion 1(c ) is itse lf c ate goric a lly ove rbroa d a

nd c a nnot support
4the e nha

nc e m e nt. 2 As a

re sult, we ne e d not de te rm ine whe the r the fe lony ve rsion of the s tat ute is divisible

unde r Mathis v . Unite d State s , 136 S. C t. 2242 (2016). Se c tion 1(c ) re a ds: “ It is unla wful for a pe rson, with the

inte nt to c om

pe l
anothe r to do or a

bsta in from

doing a n a c t whic h the othe r pe rson ha s a right to do
or a bsta in from

doing, to . . . [a ] tte m

pt to intim

idate the pe rson by

thre ats or forc e .” NR S § 207.190(1)(c ). This se c tion c onta ins no m e ntion of violenc e ; it re fe rs only to “ forc e . ” Give n tha

t we hold a

bove tha t “ forc e ” unde r Ne va da

la wis
c ate goric a lly

broa de r that “ p hy sic a l forc e ” unde r the se nte nc ing guide line s, Se c tion 1(c ) is a l so c ate goric a lly

ove rbroa d. Thus, e ve n if we we re to a pply the m odifie d
c ate goric a l a

pproa c h an d c onc l ude tha t M igue l-M arian o we re c o nvic te d unde r Se c tion 1(c ), his c onvic tion would still be unde r a provision too broa

d to justify the
se nte nc e e nha

nc e m e nt tha

t he re c e ive d. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D for re -se nte n c ing.

2 The gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t 1(a ) and 1(b) a

re c ate goric a lly ove rbroa d and indivisible
. 5