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). 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. AN TONI O FRE DY CE A- RODRI GU EZ , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 08- 50471 D. C . No . 5 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 1 0 6 - VA P 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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia V i r gi ni aA . P hi l l i ps , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a y25, 2010 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , T H O M A S , a n dW . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A nt on i o F re dy C ea -R od ri gu ez appeal s f rom the 37 -m on th sent ence i m po se d fol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on for bei ng an i l l egalal i en foun d i n the U ni t ed 

# FI LED JU N 22 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 50471 2 S ta te s , in v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e a f

f irm , b u t r e m a n dto c o rr e c t th e ju d g m e n t. C e a - R o d r ig u e z c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e db yc o n s id e r in g h is c o n v i c t i o n f

o rv i o l a t i n g Ca l i f

o rn i aPe n a l Co d e § 2 4 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) t o b e ac a t e g o r i c a l c r i me of vi ol ence un der U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2. T he val i d app ea l w ai ver prec l ud es ou r r evi ew o f th is c o n te n tio n . See U

ni ted States v. B i bler , 495 F . 3d 621, 623- 24 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). C e a - R o d r ig u e z c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e db yc o n s id e r in g h is J a n u a ry2 0 0 8 c o n v ic tio n to b e a“p r io rs e n te n c e ” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

c a lc u la tin g h is c r i m i na l hi s t oryunde rthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . T hi s c ont e nt i on i s f or e c l os e d by U n ite d S ta tes v . Cr u z - G ra m a

jo , 5 7 0 F .3 d1 1 6 2 , 1 1 6 7 - 7 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . C e a - R o d r ig u e z a ls o c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e db ya s s ig n in g h im c r i m i na l hi s t orypoi nt s unde rU . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 1( d) a nd ( e ) f orc om m i tt i ng pa rtof th e o f f e n s e wh i l e u n d e rac r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s e n t e n c e a n dwh i l e i n i m p r i s o n m e n t . He ar gu es thathi s s ec t i on 13 26 offe nse w as com pl et e w hen h e w as arre st ed by l ocal author i t i e s , w hi c h w a s be f or e he w a s c onvi c t e d of the ne w s t a t e of

f e ns e s a nd i m pri soned for them . C ea -R od ri gu ez i s i ncorrec t . H i s s ec t i on 13 26 offe nse w as n o t c o m p le te u n til im m ig r a tio n o f f ic ia ls f o u n dh im . See U

ni ted States v. H erna ndez , 189 F . 3d 785, 791 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( r e c ogni z i ng tha tf orpurpos e s of

the08- 50471 3 S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, the “ offe nse of bei ng foun d i n the U ni t ed S t at es ends w hen an al i en i s di sc ov er ed and i dent i fi ed by the i m m i grat i on autho ri t i es ”) . C ea R odr i gue z a l s o i s i nc orr e c tw he n he a s s e rt s tha t , be c aus e he c oul d notl e a ve the c ountryw hi l e i m pr i s one d, he w a s notc ont i nui ng t o vi ol a t e s e c t i on 1326 w hi l e he w a s im p r is o n e db ylo c a l au th o r itie s f o rth e n e w s ta te o f

f e n s e s . See U

ni ted States v. O r t i z - V i l legas , 4 9 F . 3 d1 4 3 5 , 1 4 3 7 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) (“ W e al so rej ectO rt i z-V i l l eg as’ ar gu m entthathe di d n othave the re qu i re d i nt entt o b e ‘ foun d i n’ the U ni t ed S t at es b e c au s e h e w a s i n v o l u n t a r i l yi n c a r c e r a t e dw i th i n U n i t e dSt a t e s ’ b o r d e r s a tth e t i me h e wa s l o c a t e d . ” ) . C e a - R o d r i g u e z ’ “ i n ab i l i tyt o d e p a rtth i s c o u n trywa s o f h i s o wn m aki ng . ” See i d. a t 1 4 3 7 n .2 . I n a c c or da nc e w i th U

ni ted States v. R i ve ra-San chez , 222 F . 3d 1057, 1062 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) , w e r e m a n dth e c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith in s tru c tio n s th a t it d e le te f r o m th e ju d g m e n t th e in c o rr e c t r e f e r e n c e to s e c tio n 1 3 2 6 ( b ) . See U ni ted States v. H

erre ra-B lan co , 2 3 2 F .3 d7 1 5 , 7 1 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e m a n d in g s u as p o n te t o d el et e the re fe re nce t o sec t i on 13 26 (b)) . O n rem and, the courtal so shal l corr ec t the j ud gm entt o ref

l ec tthatC ea -R od ri gu ez w as conv i ct ed of bei ng an i l l egalal i en fo u n di n th e U n i t edS t at es aft er d ep o rt at i o n , n o tfo r i l l eg al re-en try. A F F IR M E D ; R E M A N D E D to corre ctju d gm en t.