T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v . S AU L B E L T R AN , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10265 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 9 -cr-0 0 1 0 0 -R C JV P C -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe r tC l i ve J one s , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry 13, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W A L L A C E , N O O N A N , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S au l B e ltr a n ap p e a ls f

r o m a4 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e d p u r s u a n t to h is gu i l ty pl eat o i l l egal re entryby a deport ed al i en un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) . B el tra n c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr one ous l yappl i e d as i xt e e n- l e ve l “ c r i m e of 

# FI LED JAN 30 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

vi ol e nc e ” e nha nc e m e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ba s e d on B e l tr a n’ s 2001 N e va dac onvi c t i on of

a tt e m pt e d bur gl a ry . W e r e m a nd. W e a p p ly th e m o d ified ca teg o rica l ap p ro ac h to d eterm in e w h eth erB eltran ’s 2 0 0 1 c o n v ic tio n “n e c e s s a r ily r e s te d ” o n f a c ts s a tis f

y in g th e e le m e n ts o f

g e n e r ic b u r g la ry , in c lu d in g th e r e q u ir e m e n t o f a n “u n la w f

u l o ru n p r iv ile g e d ” e n try . U ni ted Stat es v. A gu i la-Mon tes de O ca , 6 5 5 F .3 d 9 1 5 , 9 4 0 , 9 4 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) ( e n b a n c ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tha d be f or e i ttw o doc um e nt s f

r om the N e va dac onvi c t i on. T he Judg m entof C on vi ct i on st at ed thatB el tra n p l ea ded g ui l ty t o the st atut ory de f i ni t i on of a tt e m pt e d bur gl a ry . N e va dabur gl a ry doe s notr e qui r e a n “ unl a w f ul o ru n p r iv ile g e d ” e n try . Se e , e .g ., S te p h a n s v . S ta te , 262 P . 3d 727, 729 ( N e v. 2011) ( u p h o ld in g b u r g la ry c o n v ic tio n f o rs h o p lif

tin g ) ; H e rn a n dezv . S ta te , 50 P . 3d 1100, 11 13 (N ev. 20 02 ). B ec ause the Judg m entof C on vi ct i on di d n oti nd i ca t e that B e l tr a n pl e a de d gui l ty “ a s c ha r ge d” i n the I nf orm a t i on, the c our tc oul d not c o n s id e rf

a c ts a lle g e d in th e I n f

o rm a tio n . U

ni te d State s v . V

i dal , 504 F . 3d 1072, 10 87 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). W i tho utm ore, i tcoul d n otfi nd thatB el tra n’ s gui l ty pl ea n e c e s s a r ily a d m itte d th e e le m e n ts o f g e n e r ic b u r g la ry . See A g u ila , 655 F . 3d a t921 ( c i t i ng Sh epard v. U

ni ted Stat es , 5 4 4 U . S. 1 3 , 2 6 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ) . Th e s i x t e e n - l e v e l c r i me of vi ol ence enhancem entw as i m prop er .3

T h e e rr o rw a s n o t h a rm le s s . “A d is tr ic t c o u r t's m e r e s ta te m e n t th a t it w o u ld i m pos e the s a m e above - G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e no m a tt e rw ha tthe c orr e c tc a l c ul a t i on c a n n o t, w ith o u t m o r e , in s u la te th e s e n te n c e f r o m r e m a n d , b e c au s e th e c o u r t's anal ys i s di d n otfl ow fr om an i ni t i al det erm i nat i on of the corre ctG ui del i nes ra ng e. ” U

ni te d State s v . Munoz - C am ar e na , 6 3 1 F .3 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 3 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) . T h e s ix te e n - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t s ig n if ic a n tly in c r e a s e d th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e to w hi c h B e l tr a n w a s e xpos e d. W e the r e f

or e A F F I R M the c onvi c t i on butV A C A T E the s e nt e nc e a nd R E M A N D f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng. O n r e m a nd, the gove rnm e ntm a y pr oduc e , a nd the courtm ayconsi der, any docum ent s f rom the 20 01 N evada convic t i on perm i tt ed un der Sh ep a rd

a nd A g u ila . See Sh ep a rd , 5 4 4 U .S . a t 1 6 , 2 6 ; A g u ila , 65 5 F . 3d at 9 2 1 . W e n o te, h o w ev er , th at p o li ce re p o rts a n d th e p ro b atio n d ep ar tm en t’ s P r e s e n te n c e I n v e s tig a tio n R e p o r t a r e n o t a m o n g th e s e . See A g u ila , 655 F . 3d a t921 ( Sh ep a rd “ re j ec t ed the . . . cont ent i on thatthe se nt enci ng courtm ayl oo k atpo l i ce re po rt s . . . t o d et erm i ne w hata gui l ty pl ea‘ nece ss ar i l y a dm i tt ed[. ] ’ ”) E ach p arty t o b ear i t s o w n co st s.