Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 51492

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee , v. J UAN GABRI EL CUEVAS

- J ACOM E , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t
.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c t of Texas N o . 3 : 0 7

- CR- 2 1 7 4

- ALL

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d O W E N , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: *

Ju an C u evas- Jacom e pl ead ed gu i l t y of i ll e g a l reen t ry i n t o t h e U n i t ed St at e s a f

t e rr e m o va l
. The pr e s e nt e nc e r e po r t ( “ PSR ” ) r e c o m m e nde d a s i xt e e nle v e l e n h a n c e m e n tu n d e rU .S .S .G

. § 2 L 1 .2(b )(1)(A)(i i), b e ca u se C u e v a s -J a c o m e ’s United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 51492

2 pri or c on vi ct i on of

thir d-degree robb ery u n der O regon law w as a “cr i m e of vi ol en ce” (“ C O V ” )

. T h e P S R d i d n otincl u de an y speci f i c i n f orm ati on on the O regon
r o bb e r y s t at ut e a nd n o t e d t hat“ [ d] e t ai l s o f t he o f fe ns e hav e be e n r e que s t e d, b ut
n otyetrec ei ved
. ” Foll ow i n g t h e rec om m en da t i on i n t h e P S R , t h e di st ri ctcourt
a p p l i e d t h e e n h a n c e me n t
. We a f f i r m. C u evas- Jacom e di d n otobj ectt o t h e en h an cem en t i n t h e di st ri ctcourt , so w e re v ie w fo rp la in e r r o r , seeUn i t ed S t ate s v. G arza-Lop ez , 4 1 0 F. 3 d 268, 272 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) , u nderw hi c h “ st andard[] a def endant m ustes t abl i sh e r r ort hat i s p l a i n a n d a ff

ects su b stan ti a lri gh ts, ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. G on zal ez- R am i rez , 477 F
. 3d 310 , 311 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)

. Th i s c ou rtt h en h as di scr et i on t o cor rectt h e err or i f i t“ seri ou sl y af

fect s t h e fai rness, i n t egri t y, or pu bl i c r epu t ati on of j u di ci alprocee d i n gs . ” I

d. a t 3 1 1 -1 2 (i n te rn a l qu o ta tion s a n d m o d ifi ca tion s o m itted ). T h e di st ri ct court com m i t t ed pl ai n errorby rel yi n g on t h e character i zati on in th e P S R alon e w i th ou t f u rth e rin fo r m a tio n a b o u t t h e co n v ic tio n . G arza-Lop ez , 410 F. 3d at274. Robber y i s one of t he enum er at ed C O V of fens es und er§ 2L1. 2- (b) ( 1) (A ) ( i i) , bu tt h e di st ri ctcourtm u stan al yze t h e stat u t e of convic t i on un der t h e “ com m on - sense ap proach ” t o veri f y th at i t com ports w i t h t h e gen eral l y- acc e p te d d e fin itio n o f r o b b e r y . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. Mu ng ia -Po rtillo , 484 F. 3d 813, 8 1 6 ( 5 th C ir .), cer t
. den i ed , 1 28 S. Ct

. 3 20 ( 20 07 )

. W i t h o nl y t he uns upp o r t ed
s t at e m e nt i n t he PSR , t he c o ur t ha d no w ayo f m ak i ng t hatde t e r m i nat i o n. The
e r r o ro bv i o us l y af

fe c t e d Cue va s - Ja c o m e’ s s ubs t ant i alr i ght s , b e c aus e t he e nh a n c e m e n t v a s tly in c r e a s e d th e g u id e lin e ra n g e . Se e Uni t e d St at e s v . G r ac i aC a n tu , 3 0 2 F
. 3 d 2 0 8 , 3 1 3 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( n o t i n gt h a t a l a r g e i n c r e a s e i n r e c o mm e n d e d g u id e li n e ra n g e a ffec ts s u b sta n tia l righ ts). O n a ppe al , t hi s c o ur t gr ant e d t he go ve r nm e nt ’ s uno ppo s e d m o t i o n t o s upp l e me n t t h e r e c o r d t o i n c l u d e t h e O r e g o n s t a t u t e u n d e r w h i c h C u e v a s - J a c o me w a s con victed
. T h ere fore, w e can p rop erly d eterm i n e w h eth er t h e st a tu te isN o. 07- 51492

See United States v. Fernandez-Cusco , 447 F.3d 38 2, 386 -87 (5thC ir. 2 006) (usingsup- 1 pl em ental info rm ationintrodu ce d onapp e altodet er m in ewh eth erC OV e nh anc em ent a pp li es); Uni ted States v. Mar tinez -V ega , 4 7 1 F .3 d 5 5 9 , 5 6 2 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6) (s a me). Th e th e T ex a s robb eryst atuter ea dsa s f ollo ws: 2 (a) A per son commits an offen se if, in the co urse of co mmittin g theft as define d in Ch apter31 an d withintentto obtain or maintain control of th e property , he : (c ontinu ed
.. .) 3 equ i valent t o gen eri c r obbery su ch that t h e enh an cem en t app l i es. 1 C u ev a s-Ja com e w a s con victed of rob b ery i n the third de gr ee u n d er a statu t e t h at r ead s: (1 ) Ap e r s o n co m m its th e cr im e o f r o b b e r y in th e th ir d d e g r e e if in t h e course of

com m i t t i n g or att em pti n g t o com m i t t h ef t or u n au t h ori ze d u se o f a ve h i cl e . . . the pe rson u ses o r th rea ten s th e im m ed i a te u se of p h y sica l f

o rc e u p o n a n o th e r p e rs o n w ith th e in te n t of: ( a) P reventi n g or overcom i n g resi st an ce to the t ak i n g of t h e property ort o ret en t i on t h ereof i m m e d i atel y af

t er t h e t ak i n g; or (b) Com pe l l i ng t he o w ne r o f s uc h pr o pe r t y o r a no t her pe r s o n t o de l i ve rt he pr o pe r t y o r t o e nga ge i n o t he r c o ndu ctw h i ch m i gh ta i d i n t h e com m i ssi on of t h e t h ef

t or u n au t h ori zed u se of

a veh i cl e. O R . R EV . S TAT
. § 1 64
. 39 5 (W e s t 2 00 3)

. Thi s c o ur t ha s pr e vi o us l y de f i ne d t he “ge n eric, con tem p ora ry m ea n i n g o f ‘ rob b ery . ’ ” Uni t e d St ate s v. Sant i e s t e ba nHernan d ez , 469 F
. 3d 376 , 379 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)

. C on sul t i n g severaldi ct i on ari es and t r eat i se s and r obbe r y st at ut es f r om a num berof

st at es , w e co ncl uded t hat

“ t he ge ne r i c f

o r m o f r o bb e r y ‘ m ayb e t ho ugh t o f a s a gg r av at e d l ar c e ny, ’c o nt ai ni n g at l east t h e el em en t s of ‘ m i sapp ropri ati on of property un der ci rcum st an ces i n vo l vin g [i m m ed i a te] d a n ge r to th e p erso n . ’ ” I d. at380 ( quot i ng W AYNE R. L A
F AV E , S UBS TANT IVE C RIMI NAL L AW § 2 0 .3 in tr o ., (d )(2 ) (2 d e d
. 2 0 0 3 ) ) . W e h e ld t h at t h e T exas robbery st atute f i t t h e gen eri c defi n i t i on , becau se i t s r equ i re 2N o. 07- 51492

(...continu ed) 2 (1) intention ally, knowingly , or reckle ssly cau ses bo dilyin jury to ano ther ; or (2) intention ally or knowinglythreate ns o r pl aces ano therinfear of i mminent b odily inj uryor death
. T EX . P ENAL C O D E ANN . § 2 9 .0 2 (Vern on2 0 0 6). See also United States v. Tellez-Mart inez , 517 F.3 d 813 (5thC ir.) (r elying onth e San

3 ties te ban-Hernandezdefinition to hold that th e C aliforni a robb ery statute is aC OV fo r sen te nce -e nh a nce me nt purp os es), cert . de nied , 1 2 9S

. C t. 1 7 0(2 0 0 8). 4 m en tof “ act u alor t h reat en ed bod i l y i nj u ry” i s t h e equ i valent of t h e i m m edi ated a n g e re le m e n t in g e n e r ic ro b b e r y . I d. at381. 3 The O r e go n t hi r d- de gr e e r o bb e r y s t at ut e ha s b o t h o f t he e l e m e nt s o f

g e neric rob b ery . Iti n cl u d es m i sa p p rop ri a ti on of p rop erty w i th the w ord s “com m i tt i n g or at t em pti n g t o com m i tt h ef t or u n au t h ori zed u se of a veh i cl e. ” A n d i trequ i res t h at there be i m m edi ate dan ger t o a person, becau se t h e defen da n t m u st “u se[] or th rea ten [] the i m m ed i a te u se of p h ys i ca l force u p on an oth er p erso n ” t o be conv i ct ed. C u evas- Jacom e w as t h eref ore c on vi ct ed of

a C O V an d w as subjec t to th e s ix te e n -le v el en h a n c e m e n t. B e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e r r o r d id n o t “ s e r io u s lya ffe c t[] th e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o r p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s ,” G on zal ez- R am i rez , 4 7 7 F
. 3 d a t3 1 1

- 1 2 , we AF FI RM
.