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 a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 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. J O SE A N TO N I O M A RTI N EZ- FLO RES, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 50406 D . C . N o. 3: 11 -c r- 00 91 8-JA H -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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . H ous t on, 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 A ugus t9, 2012 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , S IL V E R M A N , an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jose A nt on i o M art i nez- F l ores appeal s the se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ct courtfol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl eat o b ei ng a deport ed al i en foun d i n the U ni t ed S t at es i n v i o l a t i o n o f

8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) . W e a f f i r m. 

# FI LED AU G 17 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

M a r tin e z - F lo r e s a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e te r m in in g th a t h is 2007 c onvi c t i on f

orf e l ony f a l s e i m pr i s onm e nt , C a l . P e na l C ode §§ 236/ 237, c ons t i tut e d a “ c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e ” unde rU . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) . F orthe pu rposes of § 2 L 1. 2, the t erm “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” m ea ns “ any . . . offe nse und er f e de r a l , s t a t e , orl oc a l l a w tha tha s a s a n e l e m e ntthe us e , a tt e m pt e d us e , or thr e a t e ne d us e of

phy s i c a l f

or c e a ga i ns tthe pe r s on of a nothe r . ” U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2, c m t . n. 1( B ) ( i i i ) . T he r e qui s i t e de gr e e of phy s i c a l f

or c e i s “ f or c e c apabl e of

c a us i ng ph ys i ca l pai n o r i nj ury t o ano ther pers on . ” John son v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 3 0 S . C t. 1 2 6 5 , 1 2 7 1 ( 2 0 1 0 ) . A s the gove rnm e ntc orr e c t l y c onc e de s , C a l i f orni a f e l ony f a l s e i m pr i s onm e nt i s nota c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e unde rthe c a t e gor i c a l appr oa c h, be c a us e i tm a y be com m i tt ed by m ea ns of “ fr aud” or “ dece i t . ” C al . P enal C od e § 23 7. H ow ever , M a r t i ne z - F l or e s ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i on qua l i f i e s a s a c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e unde rthe m odi f i e d c a t e gor i c a l appr oa c h. M a r t i ne z - F l or e s a dm i tt e d i n hi s gui l ty pl e a tha the

“ un l aw ful l y use d v i ol ence t o v i ol at e the pers on al l i berty of a no ther. ” U nd er C a l i f orni a l a w , f

a l s e i m pr i s onm e ntby vi ol e nc e ne c e s s a r i l y r e qui r e s “ the us e of forc e bey on d thatre qu i re d for si m pl e r es tra i nt . ” P eopl e v . B ab i ch , 18 C a l . R ptr . 2d 6 0 , 6 5 ( C t. A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) . W h e r e , a s h e r e , a d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s th a t a s ta te o f f e n s e is o v e rb r o a d , “h e m u s t a t le a s t p o in t to h is o w n c a s e o ro th e rc a s e s in w h ic h th e s ta te3

c our t s i n f

a c tdi d appl y the s t a tut e i n the s pe c i a l ( nonge ne r i c ) m a nne rf orw hi c h he ar gu es . ” G on zales v. D uena s-A lvarez , 54 9 U . S . 18 3, 19 3 (20 07 ). M art i nez- F l ores ha s notpoi nt e d t o, norc a n w e f i nd, a s i ngl e C a l i f

orni a c a s e i m pos i ng a c onvi c t i on for f al se i m pri sonm entby vi ol ence i n the abse nce of “ forc e c a p a b le of c a us i ng ph ys i ca l pai n o r i nj ury t o ano ther pers on . ” J ohns on , 1 3 0 S . C t. a t 1 2 7 1 ( e m p h a s is added). N or has M art i nez- F l ores offe re d any ca se s i n sup po rtof hi s theory that fal se i m p ri so n m en tb y v i o l en ce m ay b e effected b y m ean s o f v i o l en ce ag ai n st prop erty. W e there fore concl ud e thatfa l se i m pri sonm entby vi ol ence , C al . P enal C od e § 23 7, i s acr i m e of vi ol ence for the pu rposes of U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2(b)(1)(A ). AF F I RME D.1

U ni t ed Stat es v. M

art i nez- Fl ores , N o. 11- 50406 R E I N H A R D T , C i r c ui tJ udge , di s s e nt i ng: T he m aj ori ty hol ds thatfe l on y f al se i m pri sonm entby vi ol ence un der C al i forni a P enal C od e §§ 2 36 , 23 7 i s c at egori ca l l y a“ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” und er § 2 L1 . 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i ) o f

th e Un i t e d St a t e s Se n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s ( “ U. S. S. G. ” ) . To be a c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e unde rthe G ui de l i ne s , tha tof f e ns e m us tha ve “ a s a n e l e m e nt the use, att em pt ed use, or threa t ened use of physi ca l forc e agai ns t the pe rs on of an other . ” U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2 cm t . n. 1(B )( i i i ). W e have i nt erpret ed “ ph ys i ca l forc e” t o m e a n “ v io le n t fo rce – th ati s, fo rce cap ab l e o f cau si n g p h ysi cal p ai n o r i n j u ry to anothe rpe rs on . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

i l lavi ce nci o-B urruel , 6 0 8 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 1 - 6 2 ( 9 th C i r. 20 10 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). F al se i m pri sonm entby vi ol ence , as i nt erpret ed by the C al i forni a c ou rt s, do es notc a t e gor i c a l l y ha ve a s a n e l e m e ntthe us e , a tt e m pt e d us e , orthr e a t e ne d us e of vi ol e ntf or c e . “ V i ol e nc e ” f

orpurpos e s of

f a l s e i m pr i s onm e nti s de f i ne d a s “ the e x e r c is e o f

p h y s ic a l f

o r c e u s e d to r e s tr a in o v e ra n d a b o v e th e f o r c e r e a s o n ab ly nece ss ary t o eff

ec tsuch re stra i nt . ” P eopl e v . B ab i ch , 1 8 C a l. R p tr . 2 d 6 0 , 6 3 ( C a l. C t . A pp. 1993) . I n P e o

p le v . W h ite , N o . E 0 3 1 2 9 7 , 2 0 0 3 W L 2 1 2 3 5 5 5 7 ( C a l. C t. A pp . M ay 28 , 20 03 ), the C al i forni a C ou rtof A pp ea l hel d thatthi s “ vi ol ence ” e l e m e ntc oul d be s a t i s f

i e d by the a c tof

l oc ki ng a door . I n tha tc a s e , the de f e nda nt 

# FI LED AU G 17 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

s e xua l l y a s s a ul t e d a y oung gi r l w hi l e s he w a s i n hi s c a r ; a ts om e poi ntdur i ng the att ac k, he l ocked t he do ors usi ng an el ec troni c key bu tt on and t he vi ct i m w as u n a b le to m a n u a lly o p e n th e d o o r s . I d. at*1 -*2. T he defendantar gu ed on appeal th atth e ev i d en ce w as i n su ffi ci en tt o su p p o rth i s co n v i ct i o n fo r fel o n y fal se i m pr i s onm e ntby vi ol e nc e , butthe C a l i f orni a C our tof

A ppe a l di s a gr e e d, hol di ng:

“ L oc ki ng the S U V door s i m pe de d the vi c t i m f r om m a ki ng a qui c k e s c ape a nd thus c ons t i tut e d a ddi t i ona l f

or c e be y ond tha tr e a s ona bl y ne c e s s a ry t o r e s tr a i n the vi ct i m . ” I

d. a t * 2 - * 3 . N o tab ly , th e c o u r t d id n o t c ite to th e p h y s ic a l f o r c e u s e d in c onne c t i on w i th the s e xua l a s s a ul tt o uphol d the c ha r ge of f a l s e i m pr i s onm e nt . N or di d i tc i t e the t ot a l i ty of c i r c um s t a nc e s . F i na l l y , i tdi d nothol d tha tthe a c tof l ocki ng the ca r doo rs const i tut ed a threa tof harm t o the vi ct i m ; i tdi d n otho l d that th e d efen d an tw as g u i l ty o f fel o n y fal se i m p ri so n m en tb y m enace , ra ther than vi ol e nc e . I ns t e a d, i tpl a i nl y a nd unm i s t a kabl y he l d tha tthe s i m pl e una dorne d a c tof l oc ki ng the c a rdoor s , a nd tha ta c ta l one , c ons t i tut e d “ vi ol e nc e ” f orthe purpos e of fal se i m p ri so n m en t , an d th atth e d efen d an tw as th u s g u i l ty o f fel o n y fal se i m pr i s onm e ntby vi ol e nc e . I n s hor t , the C a l i f orni a c our the l d tha tthe a c tof l oc ki ng th e d o o r s c o n s titu te d th e “p h y s ic a l f o r c e . . . o v e ra n d a b o v e th e f o r c e r e a s o n ab ly nece ss ary t o eff

ec tsuch re stra i nt . ” B ab i ch , 18 C a l . R ptr . 2d a t63. T ha ta c t , how e ve r , i s notvi ol e ntf or c e “ c apabl e of

c a us i ng phy s i c a l pa i n orIn a sect i o n en t i t l ed “ S u ffi ci en cy o f E v i d en ce o f F el o n y F al se 1 I m pr i s onm e nt , ” the c our the l d: 3 i nj ury t o ano ther pers on . ” V i l lavi ce nci o-B urruel , 60 8 F . 3d at56 1-62 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). T hati s, the force used t o l ock t he ca r doo rs is n o t in its e lf

c ap ab le o f

c a u s in g p a in o rin

ju ry to a p e r s o n . ( T h a t it m ig h t le a d to fu rth er h arm s t o th e v i ct i m cau sed b y o th er p h ysi cal fo rce u sed ag ai n sth er i s a di ff er entm att er . ) F el on y f

al se i m pri sonm entby vi ol ence , there fore , as i nt erpret ed by the C a l i f

orni a C our tof

A ppe a l i n W

h ite , do es no thave “ as an el em entthe use, a tte m p te d u s e , o rth r e a te n e d u s e o f p h y s ic a l f

o r c e a g a in s t th e p e r s o n o f a n o th e r .” U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2 cm t . n. 1(B )( i i i ). I tw i l l notdo t o s a y tha tbe c a us e the c a s e i s one i n w hi c h the unde r l y i ng c r i m e i nvol ve d the us e of phy s i c a l f

or c e a ga i ns tthe vi c t i m f orpurpos e s of

the cr i m e of r ape, the C al i forni a c ou rtcoul d h ave f ou nd thatthe un derl yi ng forc e c ons t i tut e d vi ol e nc e f

orpurpos e s of

f a l s e i m pr i s onm e nt . M a y be i tc oul d ha ve , but it d id n ’t. T h a t w a s n o t w h a t th e C a lif o rn ia c o u r t h e ld a n d w h e th e ro rn o t it c o u ld have do ne so i s w ho l l y i rr el evant . T he courtcl ea rl y posed the qu es t i on of w hether l ocki ng the do ors t o k ee p som eone i n the ca r, w i tho utm ore, const i tut ed vi ol ence for purpo se s of the cr i m e of f al se i m pri sonm ent . Ithel d thati tdi d. N othi ng m ore. N o th i n g l ess. 1T he narrow qu es t i on h er e is w hether there w as suff i ci entevi dence that d e f e n d a n t u s e d v io le n c e o v e ra n d a b o v e th a t f o r c e n e c e s s a ry to ef fe ctuat e f

al se i m pri son m en t u po n the vi ct i m . T he prosecut i on ar gu ed defe nd ant ’ s a ctof l ockin g the S U V do ors c on st i tut ed addi t i on al forc e be y ond tha tr e a s ona bl y ne c essary t o r e s tr a i n the vi c t i m . T he de f e nda nt a r gue s thi s di d notc ons t i tut e a ddi t i ona l f or c e f orpurpos e s of

c onvi c t i ng h im o f f e lo n y f a ls e im p r is o n m e n t b e c a u s e th e v ic tim c o u ld m a n u a lly un l ock t he S U V do or. W e c onc l ude the r e w a s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

r e s tr a i ntove ra nd above th e f o r c e r e a s o n ab l y n e c e s s a ry t o r e s tr a i n th e v i c t i m . L o c k i n g th e S UV door s i m pe de d th e v i c t i m f r om m a ki ng a qui c k e s c ape a nd thus c o n s titu te d a d d itio n a l f

o r c e b e y o n d th a t r e a s o n ab ly n e c e s s a ry to r e s tr a in the vi c t i m . T he vi c t i m t e s t i f i e d a ttr i a l tha ts hor t l y a f t e rs he goti n the S U V , de f e nda ntl oc ke d the S U V door s w i th a n e l e c tr oni c l oc k butt on on the dr i ve r ’ s s i de a nd, w he n s he tr i e d t o unl oc k t h e d o o r, she c oul d not op en i tbecause the l ocks w er e “ deep do w n i nsi de”; “ [t ] here w as no w ay I c o u ld o p e n it.” W h ite , 2003 W L 21235557, a t*3. 4 A l l thatM art i nez- F l ores need do t o succe ed on hi s c hal l enge i s “ po i ntt o at le a s t on e c ase i n w hi c h the s t a t e c our t s appl i e d the s t a tut e i n the m a nne rtha the po si t s. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . R u iz -Ap o lo n io , 657 F . 3d 907, 914 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ; se e al so N un ezv. H

older , 59 4 F . 3d 11 24 , 11 30 n. 2 (9t h C i r. 2 0 1 0 ) ( d is c u s s in g th a t o n e c a s e is s u f f ic ie n t) . W

h ite r e p r e s e n ts th a t o n e c a s e : in W h ite , the fe l on y f

al se i m pri sonm entby vi ol ence st atut e w as appl i ed i n a w ay that do es no tm ee tthe defi ni t i on of “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” und erthe G ui del i nes. W hat ever the m aj ori ty w i shes thatca se had d on e, i thel d si m pl y thatl ocki ng the do ors5

c o n s titu te s v io le n c e . T h a t d o e s n o t m e e t th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) . I th e r e f o r e d is s e n t.