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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e R obe rtD . S a c k, S e ni orC i r c ui tJ udge f orthe S e c ond ** * C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. 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. F E L I X P E R E Z - XI A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10380 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 9 - c r - 0 2 7 6 8 - J M RC R P -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

A r i z ona J ohn M . R ol l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r5, 2012 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: S A C K , G O U L D , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. *** D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t P e r e z - X iaap p e a ls th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d f o llo w in g h is 

# FI LED NO V 16 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

gui l ty pl e at o i l l e ga l r e e ntrya f t e rde port a t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f irm . T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t co m m itp lainerro r in d eter m in in g th at P er ez -X ia’s fe l on y c on vi ct i on for s exual i nd ec encyw i th a chi l d q ual i fi ed hi m for a16 -l evel en h an cem en tu n d er U . S . S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es M an u al § 2 L 1 . 2 (b )(1 )(A ) b ecau se the conv i ct i on m ee t s the re qu i re m ent s f or a c ri m e of vi ol ence un der the m od i fi ed c a t e gor i c a l appr oa c h. A “ c r i m e of vi ol e nc e ” i s de f

i ne d i n the G ui de l i ne s t o i nc l ude “s e x u a l ab u s e o f

am in o r .” U .S . S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 2 L 1 .2 c m t. n .1 ( B ) ( iii) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyd e te rm in e d th a t P e r e z - X ia ’s c o n d u c t in expo si ng hi s geni t al s t o a 4 year- ol d i s s uffi ci entt o est abl i sh se xu al abuse of a m i norunde rthe m odi f

i e d c a t e gor i c a l appr oa c h be c aus e “ [ t ] he us e of y oung chi l dren for the grat i fi ca t i on of se xu al desi re s c on st i tut es an abuse. ” U ni ted Stat es v . B ar on-Me di na , 187 F . 3d 1144, 1147 ( 9th C i r . 1999) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not e rri n r e l y i ng on the pr e s e nt e nc e r e portf orade s c r i pt i on of

the unde r l y i ng f

a c t s of th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n b e c au s e th e p r e s e n te n c e r e p o rt q u o te d f r o m th e in f

o rm a tio n . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . G o n z a lez -Ap a r ic io , 66 3 F . 3d 41 9, 42 3– 33 (9th C i r. 20 11 ). T he di stri ctcourtal so di d n oterr i n d et erm i ni ng thatP er ez -X i a’ s s uspend ed se nt ence qu al i fi ed hi m for atw o-po i nti ncre as e i n h i s c ri m i nal hi st ory s core un der U .S . S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 4 A 1 .1 ( d ) . U n d e r§ 4 A 1 .1 ( d ) , tw o p o in ts3

m a ybe a dde d t o the de f e nda nt ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e gory“ i f the de f e nda nt c o mmi tt e d th e i n s t a n to f f e n s e w h i l e u n d e ra n yc r i mi n a l j u s t i c e s e n t e n c e [ . ] ” U . S. S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es M an u al § 4 A 1 . 1 (d ). A “ cri m i n al j u st i ce sen t en ce” m ean s a s e nt e nc e “ ha vi ng ac us t odi a l ors upe rvi s oryc om pone nt , a l though a c t i ve supervi si on i s notre qu i re d for thi s s ub se ct i on t o app l y. ” I d. § 4 A 1 .1 c m t. n .4 . P e r e z - X iac o m m itte d th e in s ta n t o f f e n s e w h ile u n d e ras u s p e n d e d s e n te n c e f o rh is pri or conv i ct i on . A cc ordi ng t o the pres ent ence re po rt , thatsuspended sent ence cont ai ned a com m un i ty s up ervi si on com po nent . A dd i t i on al l y, the di stri ctcourt j ud ge spok e w i th the prob at i on offi ce rs and d et erm i ned thateven tho ug h “ they are n o t g o in g to re v o k e [ P er ez -X ia] i n A rk an sa s,” it i s “n o t as th o u g h h e s ti ll d o es n ’t f a c e a t le a s t th e p o s s ib ilityo f th a t.” A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin det erm i ni ng thatP er ez -X i a’ s s uspend ed se nt ence const i tut ed a “ cr i m i nal j ust i ce s e n te n c e ” u n d e r§ 4 A 1 .1 ( d ) . F i n al l y, w e fi n d th atP erez-X i a’ s sen t en ce o f fi fty-o n e m o n th s— th e l o w est t erm un der the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange— w as subst ant i vel y r ea sonabl e. P er ez X i a’ s s ent ence i s s up po rt ed by the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s bec ause the di stri ct courtprop er l y c on si dere d the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, i ncl ud i ng the ri sk P er ez X iap r e s e n te d a s a n u n r e g is te r e d s e x o f f e n d e r . A F F I R M E D .