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. JESUS R AM ON C ORDOVAPOR TILLO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. Nos. 15-10125, 15-10126

D.C . Nos. 2:13-c r-00977-GM S-1, 2:13-c r-50107-GM S-1 M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd TUNHEIM , C hie f Distric t Judge
. ** De fe nda nt Je sus R am on C ordova -Portillo a ppe a ls his se nte nc e for ille ga l
re e ntry a fte r de porta

tion in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . §1326(a ), e nha nc e d by 

# FIL ED

NOV 18 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble John R . Tunhe im , C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M i nne sota , sitting by de signa tion.§ 1326(b)(1). He c ha l le nge s the a pplic ation of a

sixte e n-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), a rguing tha

t his prior c onvic tion for a ggrav at e d
a ssa u lt unde r Ariz ona la

w wa s not a

c rim e of viole nc e . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. B e c a use C ordova -Portillo did not obje c t to thefinding in the Pre se nte n c e Inve stiga tion R e port (“ PSR ” ) that he wa s pre viously c onvic te d of a

c rim e of viole nc e , pla in e rror re vie w a pplie s. Unite d State

s v . Re ndon-Duarte , 490 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th C ir. 2007). Unde r pla in e rror re vie w, “ the a ppe lla nt m ust show that the distric t c ourt m a de (1) an e rror (2) that wa s c le ar or obvious, (3) tha t
a ffe c te d substa

ntia l rights, a

n d (4) tha t se riously

a ffe c te d the fa irne ss, inte grity or public re puta

tion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Unite d State s v . C astillo-Marin , 684 F.3d 914, 918 (9th C ir. 2012). B e c a use C ordova -Portillo did not obje c t, doc um e nts
re ga rding C ordova -Portillo’ s sta te -c ourt c onvic tion we re not pre se nte d to the distric t c ourt, a n d the c ourt inste a d re lie d sole ly on the PSR . A c ourt m ay c om m it pla in e rror by

re ly ing on a

PSR to de te rm i ne if a

prior c rim e wa s a

qua lify ing c rim e of viole nc e , e ve n without a n obje c tion. Se e id. at 919-20 (c olle c ting c a s e s). Howe ve r, “ [f] or an e rror to ha v e a ffe c te d substa

ntia l rights, ‘ i n m o st c a s e s it m e ans that the e rror m

u st ha ve be e n pre

judic ia l: It m

ust ha ve a ffe c te d

the outc om e of the distric t c ourt proc e e dings.’ ” Id. at 918 (quoting U nite d State

s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 2725, 734 (1993)). In this a ppe a l, C ordova -Portillo ha s pre se nte d, a nd both pa

rtie s re ly u pon, se ve ra l doc um e nts re late d to C ordova -Portillo’ s sta te -c o urt c onvic tion. The s e judic ia lly -notic e d She pard 1 doc um e nts e sta

blish tha t C ordova -Portillo’ s prior
c onvic t ion wa s a qua lify ing c rim e of viole nc e unde r the m odifie d c ate g oric a l
a pproa c h. Thus, a

ny e rror in re ly ing on thePSR wa s not pre

judic ia l, a nd we a ffirm
.
C o rdova -Portillo wa s c onvic te d of a ggravat e d a s sa ult unde r Ariz o na

R e vise d Statute s §§ 13-1203 a

n d 13-1204, whic h is not c at e goric a lly a c rim e of viole nc e . Unite d State

s v . Gome z-He rnande

z , 680 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th C ir. 2012). Howe ve r, § 13-1203 is a

divisible sta tute , a nd a c onvic tion unde r § 13-1203(A)(2) is a c rim e of viole nc e be c a

use it “ ha s a s a

n e le m e nt ‘ the use , atte m

pte d use , or thre ate ne d use of phy sic a l forc e a g a inst thepe rson . . . of a nothe r.’ ” Unite d State

s v . C abre raPe re z , 751 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C . § 16(a )). To de te rm ine the subse c tion unde r whic h C o rdova -Portillo wa s c onvic te d, the C ourt m ay

look to “the sta

t utory de finition, c ha

rging doc um e nt, writte n ple a
a gre e m e nt, tra

nsc ript of ple a

c olloquy , a

nd a ny e xplic it fa c tua l finding by the tria l judge to whic h the de fe nda nt a sse nte d .” S

he p a rd v . Unite d State

s , 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005). He re , the inform ation a nd c om pla int did not na

m e a subse c tion of the

1 She p ard v . Unite d State

s , 544 U.S. 13 (2005).

3sta

tute , but the y

inc lude d na rrowing la

ngua g e ide ntic a l to § 13-1203(A)(2), sta ting the de fe nda

nt “ inte ntiona lly

pla c e d [the vic tim ] in re a s ona ble a ppre he nsion of im m ine nt phy sic a l injury
. ” Although the la n gua g e in the inform ation a nd
c om pla int c a nnot be re lie d on indepe nde ntly to de te rm ine whe the r C ordova -Portillo
wa s c o nvic te d of a c rim e of viole nc e be c a use C o rdova -Portillo’ s ple a a gre e m e nt
am e nde d the c om pla int, se e Alv a rado v . Holde r , 759 F.3d 1121, 1131 (9th C ir. 2014), thefa c tua l ba sis give n by C ordova -Portillo’ s attorne y at his c ha nge of ple a he aring m irrore d § 13-1203(A)(2), sta t ing tha t he “ inte ntiona l ly

pla c e d [the vic tim ] . . . in re a sona

b le a ppre he nsion of im

m ine nt phy sic a l injury .” C ordova -Portillo
a sse n te d to thefa c tua l ba sis a fte r he wa s told to liste n c are fully to his a

ttorne y ’ s de sc ription. As C ordova -Portillo spe c ific a lly a dm itte d the e le m e nts of § 13- 1203(A)(2) at his c ha

n g e of ple a

he aring, the fa c tua l ba sis c a n be c onside re d to tha

t
e xte n t in a

pply ing the m odifie d c at e goric a l a p proa c h. Se e Alv arado , 759 F.3d a t 1130 (“ A sta

te m e nt of the fa c t

ua l ba s is supporting the

guilty ple a ‘ m ay be
c onside re d if spe c ific a lly

inc orporate d

into the guilty

ple a or a dm i tte d by

a de fe nda nt.’ ” (quoting Parrilla v
. Gonzale s , 414 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th C ir. 2005))); Unite d State

s v . Marc i a-Ac osta , 780 F.3d 1244, 1251 (9th C ir. 2015). B e c a use the na rrowing la

ngua ge at the c h ange of ple a he aring wa s ide ntic a l to the q ua lify i ng subse c tion of thesta tute of c onvic tion a

nd be c a use C ordova
4Portillo wa s e xplic itly told to pa y atte ntion to his a

ttorne y ’ s sta

te m e nt of the fa c tua l ba sis a nd a sse nte d to the de sc ription, this c a se is distinc t from those C o rdova -Portillo c i te s. Se eMarc ia-Ac osta , 780 F.3d a t 1247-49, 1251-53 (re ve rsing thetria l c ourt’ s finding of a c rim e of viole nc e whe re the ple a a gre e m e nt
and c ha rging doc um e nt

c onta ine d no na

rrowing la

ngua ge an d the tria l c ourt re lie d sole l y on the attorne y ’ s sta

te m e nt, “ [a ] nd he did tha

t inte ntiona lly ”

— one of thre e possiblesta

te s of m ind unde r a

singlesubse c tion of thesta tute of c onvic t ion— during thec ha

nge of ple a

he a ring, to which the de fe nda nt did not a s se nt); Unite d State s v . Sahagun-Galle

gos , 782 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th C ir. 2015) (re ve rsing thetria l
c ourt’ s finding of a

c rim e of viole nc e whe re the fa c tua l ba sis of theple a did not
a dm it the e le m e nts of a

pa rtic ula r subse c tion, a

nd e ve n if it ha d, the de fe nda nt ne ve r
a sse n te d to thefa c tua l ba sis). Ac c ordingly , C ordova -Portillo’ s prior c onvic tion wa s
a c rim e of viole n c e supporting a n e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). AFFIRM E D.

5