### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 2 6 1

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v

.

J O S E J U L I O E C H E V E R R I A

- G O M E Z

,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s

B e f o r e J O L L Y

, H I G G I N B O T H A M

, a n d S M I T H

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

P E R C U R I A M :

J o s e J u l i o E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z a p p e a l s t h e f o r t y

- e i g h t

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e h e

r e c e i v e d a f

t e r p l e a d i n g g u i l t y t o a c h a r g e o f i l l e g a l l y r e e n t e r i n g t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s f o l l o w i n g d e p o r t a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 2 6

. E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z

a r g u e s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o m m i t t e d p l a i n e r r o r b y t r e a t i n g h i s p r i o r

c o n v i c t i o n f

o r f i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a P e n a l C o d e § § 4 5 9 & 4 6 0 ( a )

a s a c o n v i c t i o n f

o r a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f § 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C )

o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

w a s c o r r e c t t o a p p l y t h e § 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) s e n t e n c e e n h a n c e m e n t

, s o w e a f f i r m

E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z ’ s s e n t e n c e

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t



### F I L E D

Decem ber 8 , 20 10

Lyle W . Cayce

Clerk Case: 09-50261 Document: 00511316310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 2 6 1

I

.

E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z w a d e d a c r o s s t h e R i o G r a n d e R i v e r a n d e n t e r e d t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s i n E l P a s o

, T e x a s

, o n D e c e m b e r 3

, 2 0 0 8

. A U n i t e d S t a t e s C u s t o m s

a n d B o r d e r P r o t e c t i o n A g e n t s t o p p e d h i m f o r q u e s t i o n i n g

. E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z

a d m i t t e d t o b e i n g a c i t i z e n a n d n a t i o n a l o f M e x i c o w i t h o u t i m m i g r a t i o n

d o c u m e n t s a l l o w i n g h i m t o l e g a l l y e n t e r o r r e m a i n i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

. T h e

a g e n t a r r e s t e d h i m a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y d i s c o v e r e d t h a t E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z h a d

b e e n r e m o v e d f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s l e s s t h a n t w o m o n t h s e a r l i e r

. T h e

g o v e r n m e n t c h a r g e d h i m w i t h i l l e g a l l y r e e n t e r i n g t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s f o l l o w i n g

d e p o r t a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 2 6 ( a )

. U n d e r t h e s t a t u t e ’ s c o r r e s p o n d i n g 1

S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s p r o v i s i o n

, § 2 L 1

. 2

, t h e o f f e n s e o f i l l e g a l r e e n t r y c a r r i e s

a b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l o f e i g h t

. B e c a u s e E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z ’ s r e m o v a l f o l l o w e d h i s 2

c o n v i c t i o n b y t h e s t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a f o r c o m m i t t i n g t h e c r i m e o f f i r s t

- d e g r e e

b u r g l a r y

, t h e g o v e r n m e n t s o u g h t a n e n h a n c e d p e n a l t y

. 3

T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z ’s f i r s t

- d e g r e e

- b u r g l a r y

c o n v i c t i o n w a s a c o n v i c t i o n f o r a n “ a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y ” w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f

§ 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) a n d i n c r e a s e d h i s b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l b y e i g h t l e v e l s

. T h i s

e n h a n c e d b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l c o m b i n e d w i t h E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z ’ s a c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d c r i m i n a l

- h i s t o r y s c o r e t o y i e l d a n a d v i s o r y s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e

u n d e r t h e G u i d e l i n e s o f t h i r t y

- t h r e e t o f o r t y

- o n e m o n t h s

. E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z d i d

n o t o b j e c t t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s c a l c u l a t i o n o f h i s G u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e

.

See 8 U. S. C. § 1326( a) (“ [A] ny alien wh o

. . . has been

. . . rem oved

. . . wh ile an ord er 1

o f e x clus ion, dep ort atio n, or rem oval is outs tand ing, and ther eaf ter

. . . ente rs

, att em p t s t o

ente r, or is at any tim e fou nd in the Unit e d Sta tes

. . . sha ll be fine d unde r Title 18, or

im pr iso ned not mo re than 2 yea rs

, or both .” ).

See U. S. S E N T E N C I N G G U I D E L I N E S M A N U A L § 2 L1.2( a) (200 9). 2

See 8 U. S. C. § 1326( b)( 2) (“ Not wi ths tand ing sub se cti on (a) of this se cti on, in the cas e 3

of any alien des cri bed in s uch sub se cti on

. . . wh os e rem oval wa s sub se quent to a convic tio n

for com mi ss ion of an aggravate d fel ony, suc h alien sha ll be fine d unde r suc h tit le, im pr iso ned

not mo re than 20 ye ars

, or both

. . . . ”)

.

2 Case: 09-50261 Document: 00511316310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 2 6 1

T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o p t e d t o v a r y u p w a r d l y f r o m t h e G u i d e l i n e s a n d s e n t e n c e d

E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z t o a t e r m o f f o r t y

- e i g h t m o n t h s i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d t h r e e y e a r s

o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e

.

I I

.

O n a p p e a l

, E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z c o n t e n d s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d b y

e n h a n c i n g h i s s e n t e n c e u n d e r § 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) b a s e d o n h i s C a l i f o r n i a c o n v i c t i o n

f o r f i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y

. B e c a u s e E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a p p l y t h e § 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) s e n t e n c e e n h a n c e m e n t

, w e

r e v i e w t h a t d e c i s i o n o n l y f o r p l a i n e r r o r

. P l a i n

- e r r o r r e v i e w a l l o w s u s t o c o r r e c t 4

a n e r r o r t o w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o o b j e c t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i f t h e e r r o r

i s p l a i n

, a f

f e c t s t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s

, a n d s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t s t h e

f a i r n e s s

, i n t e g r i t y

, o r p u b l i c r e p u t a t i o n o f j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s

. W e c o n c l u d e 5

t h a t t h e n e c e s s a r y p r e d i c a t e t o p l a i n

- e r r o r r e v i e w i s m i s s i n g h e r e

, a s t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t d i d n o t e r r b y e n h a n c i n g E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z ’ s s e n t e n c e

. 6

A

.

S e c t i o n 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) o f t h e S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s p r o v i d e s f o r a n e i g h t

l e v e l i n c r e a s e t o t h e b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l o f a n y d e f e n d a n t w h o “ w a s p r e v i o u s l y

See, e. g.

, Uni ted States v. Ar vi so- Ma ta

, 442 F.3d 382, 384 (5t h Cir. ) (“ Forf eit ure is the 4

fai lure to mak e the tim ely ass ert ion of a r ight

. . . . For fei ted er ror s are revie we d unde r the

plai n err or st andar d

. . . .” ), cer t. deni ed sub nom

. Sal az ar -Pa la ci os v. Uni ted States

, 547 U. S.

1156 (200 6).

See, e. g

, Uni ted Sta tes v. M ar es

, 402 F.3d 511

, 520 (5t h Cir .) (quo ting Uni ted States 5

v. Cotton

, 535 U. S. 625

, 631 (200 2))

, cer t. deni ed

, 546 U. S. 828 ( 2005)

.

The dis tri ct cour t’s im pos itio n of a se n t e n c e a b o v e the range rec om me nded by the 6

Gu ide lines doe s not sub st antia lly alte r our revie w. The dis tri ct cour t mus t cor rec tly calc ulate

the app lica ble Gu ide lines range even wh en it choo se s to dep art upw ard ly fr om that range. See

Ga ll v. Uni ted States

, 552 U. S. 46, 51 (200 7) (“ Regard les s of wh ethe r the se nten ce im pos ed is

ins ide or outs ide the Gu ide lines range, the a p p e l late cour t mus t

. . . fir st ens ure that the

dis tri ct cour t com mi tte d n o s i g n i fic ant pr oce dur al err or, suc h as fai ling to calc ulate (or

im pr ope rly calc ulati ng) the Gu ide lines r ange

. . . .” ).

3 Case: 09-50261 Document: 00511316310 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 2 6 1

d e p o r t e d

, o r u n l a w f

u l l y r e m a i n e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

, a f t e r

. . . a c o n v i c t i o n f

o r

a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y

. ” A s u s e d i n § 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C )

, a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y “ h a s

7

t h e m e a n i n g g i v e n t h a t t e r m i n 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 )

. ” I n t u r n

, 8

§ 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( F ) d e f

i n e s a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y a s “ a c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e ( a s d e f i n e d

i n s e c t i o n 1 6 o f T i t l e 1 8

, b u t n o t i n c l u d i n g a p u r e l y p o l i t i c a l o f f e n s e ) f o r w h i c h

t h e t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t [ i s ] a t l e a s t o n e y e a r

. ” A n d u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 : 9

T h e t e r m “ c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e ” m e a n s

— ( a ) a n o f

f e n s e t h a t h a s a s a n e l e m e n t t h e u s e

, a t t e m p t e d u s e

, o r

t h r e a t e n e d u s e o f p h y s i c a l f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y o f

a n o t h e r

, o r

( b ) a n y o t h e r o f

f e n s e t h a t i s a f e l o n y a n d t h a t

, b y i t s n a t u r e

, i n v o l v e s

a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k t h a t p h y s i c a l f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y

o f a n o t h e r m a y b e u s e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f c o m m i t t i n g t h e o f f e n s e

.

T h e r e f o r e

, w e m u s t c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z ’ s c o n v i c t i o n o f b u r g l a r y

f i r s t d e g r e e s a t i s f

i e s t h e d e f

i n i t i o n o f e i t h e r § 1 6 ( a ) o r § 1 6 ( b )

.

E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z ’ s c o n v i c t i o n d o e s n o t q u a l i f y a s a c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e

u n d e r § 1 6 ( a )

. U n d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w

, t h e c r i m e o f f i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y d o e s n o t

h a v e a s a n e l e m e n t t h e u s e

, a t t e m p t e d u s e

, o r t h r e a t e n e d u s e o f p h y s i c a l f o r c e

a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y o f a n o t h e r

. T h e r e f o r e

, t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e 1 0

d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o e n h a n c e E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z ’ s s e n t e n c e u n d e r

§ 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) t u r n s o n w h e t h e r f i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y

, a s d e f i n e d b y t h e

See U. S. S E N T E N C I N G G U I D E L I N E S M A N U A L § 2 L1.2( b)( 1)( C) (200 9). 7

See id. § 2 L1.2 cm t. 3( A). 8

8 U. S. C. § 1101( a)( 43)( F). Und er Calif orni a law

, a convic tio n for fir st -d egree burglar y 9

is puni sha ble by a ter m of im pr iso nme nt of mo re than one year. S e e C A L

. P E N A L C O D E

§ 4 61(a ).

Sec tio n 1101( a)( 43) als o def ines the ter m “aggrav a t e d f e l o ny” to inclu de “a burglar y

off ens e for wh ich the ter m of im pr iso nme nt [is ] at leas t one year. ” 8 U. S. C. § 1101( a)( 43)( G)

. Ho we ver, a s the governm ent conc ede s, Echever ria- Go me z’s se nten ce wa s not sub ject to

enhanc em ent unde r 8 U. S. C. § 1101( a)( 43)( G) beca use the ter m “bur glary” doe s not car ry the

sam e me aning in Calif orni a Penal Code §§ 459 & 460( a) that it car ries in fed eral st atut es

. See

inf ra note s 35-3 7 an d acc om panyin g t ext.

See inf ra note 20 and acc om panying text

. 1 0

4 Case: 09-50261 Document: 00511316310 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 2 6 1

C a l i f o r n i a P e n a l C o d e

, i s a “ c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e ” w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

.

§ 1 6 ( b )

.

T h i s C o u r t u s e s a c a t e g o r i c a l a p p r o a c h t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a d e f e n d a n t ’ s

p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n i s a c o n v i c t i o n f o r a “ c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e ” u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 ( b )

. 1 1

“ T h i s m e a n s t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n d o n o t

m a t t e r

. . . . T h e p r o p e r i n q u i r y i s w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r d e f i n e d o f f e n s e

, i n t h e

a b s t r a c t

, i s a c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 ( b )

. ” T h e c a t e g o r i c a l 1 2

a p p r o a c h t h u s f

o c u s e s o n t h e s t a t u t o r y e l e m e n t s o f t h e p r i o r o f f e n s e

, i n c l u d i n g

a n y j u d i c i a l g l o s s t h a t t h e c o u r t s c h a r g e d w i t h i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e s t a t u t e h a v e

p l a c e d o n t h o s e e l e m e n t s

. I f i t i s p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y t h e c r i m e o f c o n v i c t i o n 1 3

b a s e d s o l e l y o n t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e

, w e d o s o

. O n l y i f t h e “ d e f

e n d a n t ’ s 1 4

p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n i s u n d e r a s t a t u t e t h a t i d e n t i f i e s s e v e r a l s e p a r a t e o f f e n s e s

, s o m e

See, e. g.

, Uni ted States v. Chap a- Ga rz a

, 243 F.3d 921, 924 (5t h C ir. 2001) (“ [T] he 1 1

wo rd s ‘by its natur e’ requ ire us to emplo y a cat egori cal appro ach wh en det erm ining wh ethe r

an off ens e is a cri me of violenc e.” (c itin g Uni ted States v. Ve la zqu ez -O ve ra

, 100 F.3d 418, 420-

21 ( 5th Cir. 199 6)) ).

Id. ; see al so Leoc al v. As hcr oft

, 543 U. S. 1, 7 (200 4) (“ [S ect ion 16(b )] dir ect s our foc us 1 2

to the ‘of

fen se ’ of convic tio n.

. . . This language requ ires us to l o o k t o t h e e lem ents and the

natur e of the off

ens e of con victi on, rather than to the part icula r fac ts relat ing to pet itio ner’ s

cri me .” ); Ve la zqu ez -O ve ra

, 100 F.3d at 421 (“ A se nten cing cour t need only cons ide r the fac t

that [t he def

enda nt] wa s convic ted and the inher ent natur e of the off ens e.” (c itin g Uni ted

States v. Ro dri guez -G uzm an

, 56 F. 3d 18, 21 n .4 (5t h Cir

. 1995) ))

.

See Jame s v. Uni ted States

, 550 U. S. 192, 202 (200 7) (inter pr eti ng Flori da’ s st atut e 1 3

on cri mi nal att em pt in light of Flori da Sup rem e Court pr ece dent that had “c o n s i d erab ly

narr ow ed [t he st atut e’s ] app lica tio n in the cont ext of att em pt ed burglar y”); Uni ted Sta tes v.

Rose

, 587 F .3d 695, 704 (5t h Cir. 2009) (int erp ret ing Texas ’s aggravate d robb ery st atut e in

light of Texas Court of Crim inal App eals pr ece dent requ iring “a clos e nexus betw een the thef t

and the for ce” ), cer t. deni ed , 130 S. Ct. 1915 (20 10). Jam es and Rose in ter pr et, r es pec tivel y,

the Arm ed Caree r Crim inal Act, 18 U. S. C. § 924( e)( 2)( B), and the Caree r Of fen der Sta tut e, 18

U. S. C. § 3559( c)

. But w e u se t he sam e c atego ric al app roac h t o c las sif y of fen se s unde r thos e

st atut es that we use to clas sif y off ens es unde r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 16(b ). See, e. g

, Pere z- Muno z v.

Kei sl er

, 507 F.3d 357, 362- 64 (5t h Cir. 2007) (r elying on the Sup rem e Court ’s dec isi on in Jam es

to dec ide a cas e aris in g u n d e r 18 U. S. C. § 16(b )) ; see al so Lari n-U ll oa v. Go nza le s

, 462 F.3d

456, 463 (5t h Cir. 2006) (no ting that the cat egori cal app roac h unde r 18 U. S. C. § 16(b ) “has its

roo ts in t he cat egori cal app roac h ad opt ed by t he Sup rem e Co urt in Tay lor ”)

.

See, e. g.

, Zai di v. As hcr oft

, 374 F.3d 357, 360 (5t h Cir. 2004 ) ( e x p l a ining that the 1 4

cat egori cal app roac h “ look [s ] pr im aril y t o t he text of t he st atut e vi olat ed” ).

5 Case: 09-50261 Document: 00511316310 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 2 6 1

v i o l e n t a n d o t h e r s n o t

, ” w i l l w e “ a p p l y t h e m o d i f i e d c a t e g o r i c a l m e t h o d a n d l o o k

t o [ t h e i n d i c t m e n t ] t o d e t e r m i n e ‘ w h i c h s t a t u t o r y p h r a s e w a s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e

c o n v i c t i o n

. ’ ” 1 5

E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z w a s i n d i c t e d f o r c o m m i t t i n g “ f

i r s t d e g r e e r e s i d e n t i a l

b u r g l a r y ” a n d c o n v i c t e d o f “ b u r g l a r y f i r s t d e g r e e

. ” U n d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w

, a

p e r s o n c o m m i t s s e c o n d

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y i f h e e n t e r s a n y s t r u c t u r e w i t h t h e

i n t e n t t o c o m m i t l a r c e n y o r a f e l o n y

. A p e r s o n c o m m i t s f i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y 1 6

o n l y i f h e c o m m i t s “ b u r g l a r y o f a n i n h a b i t e d d w e l l i n g h o u s e

. ” A d w e l l i n g h o u s e 1 7

i s “ a s t r u c t u r e w h e r e p e o p l e o r d i n a r i l y l i v e

. ” A d w e l l i n g h o u s e i s i n h a b i t e d i f 1 8

i t i s “ c u r r e n t l y b e i n g u s e d f o r d w e l l i n g p u r p o s e s

, w h e t h e r o c c u p i e d o r n o t

. ” A 1 9

c o n v i c t i o n f

o r f i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a P e n a l C o d e § § 4 5 9 & 4 6 0 ( a )

t h u s r e q u i r e s p r o o f

o f a t o t a l o f

t h r e e e l e m e n t s : ( 1 ) e n t r y i n t o a d w e l l i n g h o u s e ;

( 2 ) t h a t w a s i n h a b i t e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e n t r y ; ( 3 ) w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o c o m m i t

l a r c e n y o r a f e l o n y

. 2 0

Uni ted States v. Hu

ghes

, 602 F.3d 669, 674 (5t h Cir. 2010) (quo ting Johns on v. Uni ted 1 5

States

, 130 S. Ct. 1265, 1273 (201 0))

, pe titio n for cer t. fi le d

, No. 10-5 289 (Jul y 6, 2010) ; see al so

Lari n-U ll oa

, 462 F.3d at 464 ( “If the st atut e of convic tio n def ines mul tip le off

ens es

, at leas t

one of wh ich doe s not des cri be an aggravate d fel ony, we app ly a mo dif ied cat egori cal app roac h,

unde r wh ich we may als o exam ine cer tain add itio nal doc ume nts (if c onta ined in the rec ord

fr ami ng the guilty ple a convict ion) to d ete rm ine wh ethe r the co nvict ion w as ‘ne ces sar ily’ fo r

a par tic ular cri me def

ined by the st atut e that me ets the aggravate d fel ony cri ter ion. ”) ; Uni ted

States v. Mo ntgome ry

, 402 F.3d 482, 486 (5t h Cir. 2005) (“ We allow for an exam inati on of the

indi ctm ent only to ‘pa re dow n’ the st atut e—t hat is, to dec ide unde r wh i c h b r a n c h of a

dis junct ive st atut e a d efe ndant ’s c onvict ion fal ls. ”)

.

See C A L

. P E N A L C O D E §§ 459 & 460( b). 1 6

Id. § 4 60(a ). 1 7

Peop le v. Rodr igue z

, 122 Cal. App

. 4th 121, 132 ( C a l

. C t. App

. 2004) (c itat ion and 1 8

inte rnal quot atio n m ark s om itt ed)

.

C A L

. P E N A L C O D E § 4 59. 1 9

Peop le v. Ande rso n

, 211 P.3d 584, 589 (Cal. 2009) ; see al so id. (“ Firs t degr ee burglar y 2 0

is a great er sub st antive off ens e than se cond degr ee burglar y beca use i t r e quire s pr oof of all

the elem ents of se cond degr ee burglar y and the add itio nal elem ent that the area ente red wa s

use d as a d we lling. ”)

.

6 Case: 09-50261 Document: 00511316310 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 2 6 1

B

.

W e h o l d t h a t f

i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a P e n a l C o d e § § 4 5 9 &

4 6 0 ( a ) i s a “ c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e ” w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 ( b )

.

C a l i f o r n i a l a w f

o u n d s i t s d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n f i r s t

- a n d s e c o n d

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y

“ u p o n t h e r i s k o f p e r s o n a l i n j u r y i n v o l v e d

, ” a n d “ t h e h i g h e r d e g r e e o f t h e

b u r g l a r y l a w i s i n t e n d e d t o p r e v e n t t h o s e s i t u a t i o n s w h i c h a r e m o s t d a n g e r o u s

,

m o s t l i k e l y t o c a u s e p e r s o n a l i n j u r y

. ” A s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f C a l i f o r n i a h a s 2 1

e x p l a i n e d :

B u r g l a r y l a w s a r e b a s e d p r i m a r i l y u p o n a r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e d a n g e r s

t o p e r s o n a l s a f

e t y c r e a t e d b y t h e u s u a l b u r g l a r y s i t u a t i o n

— t h e

d a n g e r t h a t t h e i n t r u d e r w i l l h a r m t h e o c c u p a n t s i n a t t e m p t i n g t o

p e r p e t r a t e t h e i n t e n d e d c r i m e o r t o e s c a p e a n d t h e d a n g e r t h a t t h e

o c c u p a n t s w i l l i n a n g e r o r p a n i c r e a c t v i o l e n t l y t o t h e i n v a s i o n

,

t h e r e b y i n v i t i n g m o r e v i o l e n c e

. T h e l a w s a r e p r i m a r i l y d e s i g n e d

,

t h e n

, . . . t o f

o r e s t a l l t h e g e r m i n a t i o n o f a s i t u a t i o n d a n g e r o u s t o

p e r s o n a l s a f e t y

. . . . [ E ] n t r y i n t o a n i n h a b i t e d s t r u c t u r e i s r e c o g n i z e d

a s m o s t d a n g e r o u s a n d m o s t l i k e l y t o c r e a t e p e r s o n a l i n j u r y

, j u s t i f y i n g a s s i g n m e n t o f t h e g r e a t e r d e g r e e [ u n d e r ] § 4 6 0

. . . . 2 2

B e c a u s e e n t r y i n t o a n i n h a b i t e d d w e l l i n g h o u s e i s a s t a t u t o r y e l e m e n t o f t h e

o f f e n s e o f f

i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y i n C a l i f o r n i a

, t h e o f

f e n s e i s b y i t s n a t u r e o n e t h a t

i n v o l v e s a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k t h a t p h y s i c a l f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y o f

a n o t h e r w i l l b e u s e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f c o m m i t t i n g t h e o f f e n s e

.

W e f i n d d i r e c t s u p p o r t f o r o u r h o l d i n g i n t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t ’ s d e c i s i o n

U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. B e c k e r

. T h e r e

, t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t 2 3

“ C a l i f o r n i a c o n v i c t i o n s f

o r f i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y f i t 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 ( b ) ’ s

. . .

Peop le v. Wi ls on

, 208 Cal. App

. 3d 611, 615 ( Cal. Ct. Ap p. 1989) (c itat ions , inte rnal 2 1

quot atio n m ark s, and em phas is om itt ed)

.

Peop le v. Mo ntoya

, 874 P.2d 903, 911- 12 (Cal. 1994) (c itat ions and inte rnal quot atio n 2 2

mar ks om itt ed)

.

919 F. 2d 568 (9t h Cir

. 1990)

, cer t. deni ed

, 499 U. S. 911 ( 1991)

. 2 3

7 Case: 09-50261 Document: 00511316310 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 2 6 1

s t a t u t o r y d e f

i n i t i o n o f a ‘ c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e

. ’ ” T h e c o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t “ [ a ] n y 2 4

t i m e a b u r g l a r e n t e r s a d w e l l i n g w i t h f e l o n i o u s o r l a r c e n o u s i n t e n t t h e r e i s a r i s k

t h a t i n t h e c o u r s e o f c o m m i t t i n g t h e c r i m e h e w i l l e n c o u n t e r o n e o f i t s l a w f u l

o c c u p a n t s

, a n d u s e p h y s i c a l f o r c e a g a i n s t t h a t o c c u p a n t e i t h e r t o a c c o m p l i s h h i s

i l l e g a l p u r p o s e o r t o e s c a p e a p p r e h e n s i o n

. ” 2 5

S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t i n t e r p r e t i n g a n a n a l o g o u s p r o v i s i o n o f t h e

A r m e d C a r e e r C r i m i n a l A c t ( “ t h e A C C A ” ) f u r t h e r u n d e r g i r d s o u r c o n c l u s i o n

t h a t C a l i f

o r n i a ’ s f i r s t

- d e g r e e

- b u r g l a r y o f f e n s e i s a “ c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e ” u n d e r 1 8

U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 ( b )

. I n J a m e s v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t a n a t t e m p t e d 2 6

b u r g l a r y c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r F l o r i d a l a w w a s a v i o l e n t f e l o n y w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g

o f a c l a u s e i n t h e A C C A t h a t d e f i n e s a v i o l e n t f e l o n y a s a c r i m e t h a t “ ‘ i n v o l v e s

c o n d u c t t h a t p r e s e n t s a s e r i o u s r i s k o f p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o a n o t h e r

. ’ ” T h e C o u r t 2 7

e m p h a s i z e d t h a t “ t h e p r o p e r i n q u i r y ” u n d e r t h e c a t e g o r i c a l a p p r o a c h “ i s w h e t h e r

t h e c o n d u c t e n c o m p a s s e d b y t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e o f f e n s e

, i n t h e o r d i n a r y c a s e

,

p r e s e n t s a s e r i o u s p o t e n t i a l r i s k o f i n j u r y t o a n o t h e r

. ” A t t e m p t e d b u r g l a r y i s 2 8

s u c h a n o f

f e n s e

, t h e C o u r t e x p l a i n e d

, b e c a u s e “ [ t ] h e m a i n r i s k o f b u r g l a r y a r i s e s

n o t f r o m t h e s i m p l e p h y s i c a l a c t o f w r o n g f u l l y e n t e r i n g o n t o a n o t h e r ’ s p r o p e r t y

,

b u t r a t h e r f

r o m t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a f a c e

- t o

- f a c e c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e

Id. at 569- 70. In Becke r

, the def enda nt rec eived a se nten ce enhanc em ent unde r the 2 4

1988 vers ion of

the “car eer off

ende r” pr ovis ion of

the Sent enci ng Gu ide lines

. See id. at 569.

At that tim e, a def

enda nt wa s a car eer off ende r if he had at leas t tw o pr ior fel ony convic tio ns

for cri me s of violenc e. See id. (quo ting U. S. S E N T E N C I N G G U I D E L I N E S M A N U A L § 4B1.1 (198 8))

. “The 1988 vers ion of the Gu ide lines pr ovide d that the ter m ‘cr im e of violenc e’ wa s to be def ined

as und er 18 U. S. C. § 1 6.” Id. (c itin g U .S

. S E N T E N C I N G G U I D E L I N E S M A N U A L § 4 B1.2 (198 8))

.

Id. at 571

. 2 5

550 U .S

. 192 (200 7). 2 6

Id. at 196 (quo ting 18 U. S. C. § 924( e)( 2)( B)( ii) ). This claus e is com mo nly ref err ed to 2 7

as the Resi dual Clau se

.

Id. at 208. 2 8

8 Case: 09-50261 Document: 00511316310 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 2 6 1

b u r g l a r a n d a t h i r d p a r t y

, ” s u c h a s “ a n o c c u p a n t

. ” T h e s a m e r i s k a t t e n d s a 2 9

b u r g l a r y t h a t C a l i f

o r n i a l a w c l a s s i f

i e s a s a f

i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y

. B y d e f i n i t i o n

,

s u c h a b u r g l a r y t a r g e t s a r e s i d e n c e

, a s t r u c t u r e t h a t i s l i k e l y t o c o n t a i n

o c c u p a n t s

. B y i t s n a t u r e

, t h e n

, r e s i d e n t i a l b u r g l a r y p r e s e n t s a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k

3 0

o f a f a c e

- t o

- f a c e c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e b u r g l a r a n d a n o c c u p a n t o f t h e

r e s i d e n c e a n d a s u b s t a n t i a l c o r r e s p o n d i n g r i s k t h a t t h e b u r g l a r w i l l u s e p h y s i c a l

f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e o c c u p a n t t o a i d i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e b u r g l a r y

. 3 1

E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z a r g u e s t h a t o u r p r i o r d e c i s i o n s i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v

.

G o n z a l e s

- T

e r r a z a s a n d U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. O r t e g a

- G o n z a g a d i c t a t e a c o n t r a r y

3 2 3 3

c o n c l u s i o n

. B o t h c a s e s a p p l y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s h o l d i n g i n T a y l o r v

. U n i t e d

S t a t e s t h a t w h e n C o n g r e s s u s e s t h e t e r m “ b u r g l a r y ” i n a f e d e r a l s t a t u t e

, i t

3 4

i n t e n d s f

o r t h a t t e r m t o c a r r y i t s “ g e n e r i c

, c o n t e m p o r a r y m e a n i n g

, ” w h i c h

i n c l u d e s a s a n e l e m e n t a n u n l a w f u l o r u n p r i v i l e g e d e n t r y i n t o a s t r u c t u r e

. 3 5

B u r g l a r y u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a P e n a l C o d e § 4 5 9 d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a s a n e l e m e n t a n

Id.

. at 203 2 9

See sup ra no tes 21- 25 a nd acc om panying text

. 3 0

Se e L e o c a l

, 5 4 3 U. S. at 10 (ob se rving in dic ta that “[ a] burglar y wo uld be cover ed 3 1

unde r § 16(b )

. . . beca use burglar y, by its natur e, involves a sub st antia l ris k that the burglar

wi ll use for ce agains t a victi m in com ple ting the cri me ”) ; Becke r

, 9 1 9 F

. 2d at 572

(“ [R] es ide ntial burglar ies car ry wi th them signi fic ant ris ks to per so nal saf ety and valued

per so nal pr ope rty. ”) ; Uni ted States v. Flor es

, 875 F.2d 1110, 1113 (5t h Cir. 1989) (“ Whene ver

a pr ivate res ide nce is brok en into

, ther e is alw ays a sub st antia l ris k that for ce wi ll be use d” ).

529 F. 3d 293 (5t h Cir

. 2008)

. 3 2

490 F.3d 393 (5t h Cir. ), cer t. deni ed sub nom

. Ay al a- Cordo voa v. United States , 552 3 3

U. S. 964 ( 2007)

.

495 U .S

. 575 (199 0). 3 4

Id. at 598. Tay lor cons tru ed the ter m “bur glary” in the ACCA. We sub se quent ly held 3 5

that ther e is “no reas on to cre ate a se par ate, par allel fed eral com mo n- l a w def init ion for

‘bur glary’” and that “ Tay lor ’s def init ion of ‘bur glary’ cont rols wh en def ining the ‘bur glary’ par t

of ‘bur glary of a d we lling’ unde r the Gu ide lines .” Or tega- Go nza ga

, 490 F.3d at 395

.

9 Case: 09-50261 Document: 00511316310 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 2 6 1

u n l a w f u l o r u n p r i v i l e g e d e n t r y i n t o a s t r u c t u r e

, s o G o n z a l e s

- T e r r a z a s a n d 3 6

O r t e g a

- G o n z a g a h o l d t h a t a b u r g l a r y c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a P e n a l C o d e

§ 4 5 9 i s n o t a c o n v i c t i o n f o r t h e e n u m e r a t e d o f f e n s e o f “ b u r g l a r y o f a d w e l l i n g ”

u n d e r § 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i i ) o f t h e S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s

. 3 7

T h o s e h o l d i n g s d o n o t c o n t r o l h e r e

. S e c t i o n 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i i ) d o e s p r o v i d e

f o r a s i x t e e n

- l e v e l b a s e

- o f f e n s e

- l e v e l i n c r e a s e f o r a d e f

e n d a n t w h o h a s p r i o r

c o n v i c t i o n f

o r a “ c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e

. ” H o w e v e r

, i t b e a r s e m p h a s i z i n g t h a t t h e

t e r m “ c r i m e o f

v i o l e n c e ” d o e s n o t c a r r y t h e s a m e m e a n i n g i n § 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i i )

t h a t i t c a r r i e s i n 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6

. A l t h o u g h t h e “ c a t c h

- a l l ” p r o v i s i o n i n t h e 3 8

c o m m e n t a r y t o § 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i i ) i s i d e n t i c a l t o 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 ( a )

, t h e

G u i d e l i n e s r e p l a c e t h e l a n g u a g e o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 ( b ) w i t h a l i s t o f s p e c i f i c c r i m e s

,

o n e o f w h i c h i s “ b u r g l a r y o f a d w e l l i n g

. ” A s t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t e x p l a i n e d i n

B e c k e r

, “ 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 m e n t i o n s n o s p e c i f i c c r i m e s a t a l l

. I t s p e a k s o n l y i n

d e s c r i p t i v e t e r m s o f f e l o n i e s t h a t c a r r y w i t h t h e m a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k t h a t f o r c e

w i l l b e u s e d

. . . . [ B ] u r g l a r y o f a r e s i d e n c e

. . . f a l l s w i t h i n t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n

. ” 3 9

I n d e e d

, i n T

a y l o r i t s e l f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t t o o k c a r e t o n o t e t h a t o f f e n s e s t h a t

d o n o t q u a l i f

y a s t h e e n u m e r a t e d o f f e n s e o f “ b u r g l a r y

, ” i n c l u d i n g “ o f f e n s e s

See sup ra note s 16-2 0 and acc om panying text ; see al so Or tega- Go nza ga

, 490 F.3d at 3 6

395- 96.

See Go nza le z- Ter ra za s

, 529 F.3d at 296 -98; Or tega- Go nza ga

, 490 F.3d at 395 -96. 3 7

C om pa re U.S. S E N T E N C I N G G U I D E L I N E S M A N U A L § 2L1.2 cm t. 1 (B )( ii i) (2 0 0 9 ) (d ef in in g 3 8

“cr im e of violenc e” as use d in § 2L1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A )( iii) to me an any one of tw elve enum erat ed

off ens es as we ll as “any othe r off ens e unde r fed eral

, st ate, or loca l law that has as an elem ent

the use

, att em pt ed use

, or thr eate ned use of phys ical for ce agains t the per so n of a n othe r”)

, wi th 18 U .S .C. § 16.

919 F.2d at 572 (d ist inguis hing Tay lor ). The Nint h Circ uit has s u b s e q u entl y 3 9

reaf fir me d the so undne ss of it s reas oning in Becke r

. In Sare ang Ye v. I.N. S.

, 214 F.3d 1128

(9t h Cir. 2000)

, that cour t held that a per so n wh o had been convic ted of burglary of a vehicl e

unde r Calif

orni a Penal Code § 459 had not com mi tte d a cri me of violenc e wi thin the me aning

of 8 U. S. C. § 1101( a)( 43)( F) and 18 U. S. C. § 16(b ). Id. at 1133- 34. In so hold ing, the cour t too k

car e to dis tinguis h its pr ior dec isi on in Becke r

. See id. at 1134 ( “ W e als o rejec t the INS’ s

analogy to res ide ntial bur glary. A per so n w ho ente rs a home or oc cup ied bui ldi ng t o c om mi t

thef t may we ll enco unte r peo ple in sid e a nd res ort t o p hysic al for ce to car ry o ut his p lan. ”)

.

1 0 Case: 09-50261 Document: 00511316310 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 2 6 1

s i m i l a r t o g e n e r i c b u r g l a r y

, ” m i g h t n o n e t h e l e s s a u t h o r i z e a s e n t e n c e

e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r a s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s i m i l a r t o 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 ( b )

. T h a t a 4 0

f i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y i n C a l i f o r n i a c o u l d

, i n t h e o r y

, i n v o l v e a p r i v i l e g e d o r l a w f u l

e n t r y d o e s n o t c h a n g e t h e f a c t t h a t

, “ i n t h e o r d i n a r y c a s e

, ” t h e r e i s a

4 1

s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k t h a t a b u r g l a r w i l l u s e p h y s i c a l f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e o c c u p a n t o f a

r e s i d e n c e t o a i d i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a r e s i d e n t i a l b u r g l a r y

.

I I I

.

F i r s t

- d e g r e e b u r g l a r y

, a s d e f i n e d i n C a l i f

o r n i a P e n a l C o d e § § 4 5 9 & 4 6 0 ( a )

,

i s a “ c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e ” w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 ( b ) a n d t h e r e f o r e

q u a l i f i e s a s a n “ a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y ” u n d e r § 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) o f t h e S e n t e n c i n g

G u i d e l i n e s

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d t h e e i g h t

- l e v e l b a s e

- o f f e n s e

- l e v e l

i n c r e a s e u n d e r § 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) w h e n i t c a l c u l a t e d E c h e v e r r i a

- G o m e z ’ s s e n t e n c e

.

T h e r e f o r e

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t i s A F F I R M E D

.

See Tay lor

, 495 U. S. at 600 n. 9 ( dis cus sin g t he ACCA’s Resi dual Clau se ). 4 0

Jam es

, 550 U. S. at 208 (em phas is added ); see al so P ere z- Muno z v. Kei sl er

, 507 F.3d 4 1

357, 364 (5t h Cir. 2007) (em phas izing that every act that fal ls wi thin the def init ion of a cri me

“nee d not be violent ” for t he cri me “ to be a c rim e o f violenc e b y it s natur e”)

.

1 1 Case: 09-50261 Document: 00511316310 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/08/2010