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 ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JESUS PAR GAS-GONZALES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50277

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-03120-B TM -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arry T. M oskowitz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

9, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , R AW L INSON, and WA TFORD, C i rc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt Je sus Pa

rga s-Gonz a le s a

p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s e ntry of c rim ina l judgm e nt. R e vie wing de novo " the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion to dism iss a n indic t m e nt unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1326 whe n the m otion is ba se d on a n 

# FIL ED JUL 11 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

b le for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a lle ge d de priva tion of dueproc e ss in theunde rly ing re m ova l proc e e dings," Unite d Stat e s v. Villa

v ic e nc io-B urrue l, 608 F.3d 556, 559 (9th C i r. 2010), we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly he ld tha t the e ntry of the 2006 re m ova l orde r wa s not " funda

m e nta lly unfa ir." 8 U.S.C . § 1326(d)(3). W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r De fe nda nt’ s c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode se c tion 12021(a )(1) (2005) c ate goric a lly

qua lifie s a s an " a ggrav ate d fe lony " pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), be c a u se it qua lifie s unde r the m odifie d c at e goric a l a pproa c h. W e m a y c onside r the polic e re ports, be c a use De fe nda

nt stipula te d to the m

in sta te c o urt a s a fa c tua l ba sis for his ple a of no c onte st. Unite d State s v. Alm a z anB e c e rra , 537 F.3d 1094, 1097–99 (9th C i r. 2008). The23 pa ge s of polic e re ports a lm ost a ll pe rta in to De fe nda nt’ s posse ssion of theha

ndgun in que s tion a

nd to his use of it, spe c ific a lly , his a c c ide nta l disc ha rge of the ha

ndgun, wounding the

le g of a by s ta nde r. The single , brie f c onte xtua l re fe re nc e in thepolic e re ports to De fe nda nt’ s owne rship of theha

ndgun re lat e d only to his own na rra tive e xpla ining how he c am e to posse ss a n d use it. De fe nda

nt’ s sta te -c ourt c onvic tion wa s for posse s sion, not ownership. Se e id. a t 1099 n.2 (re

je c ting, in sim

ila r c irc um s ta

nc e s, the a rgum e nt tha

t, be c a use the polic e re ports c o nta ine d som e re fe re nc e s to a diffe re nt c rim e , the re c ord is a m biguous: " W e re

je c t this c onte ntion be c a

u se the [polic e ] re ports, whe n re a d a s a whole , de sc ribe only

one ty pe of offe nse— se lling 2m arijua

na ." ); c f. Unite d State s v. C a ste rline , 103 F.3d 76, 78–79 (9th C ir. 1996) (re ve rsing a

c onvic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1) whe re the de fe nda nt he ld title to fire arm s but wa s in prison a t the tim e of the c rim e c ha rge d ; at tha

t tim e , " the she riff’ s offic e ha d e xc lusive phy sic a l posse ssion a nd c ontrol" of the fire arm s). Our re c e nt de c ision in Aguila r-Turc i os v. Holder, 691 F.3d 1025 (9th C ir. 2012), is not to the

c o ntra ry , be c a use the re c ord in tha

t c a se c onta ine d no fa c tua l a dm issions pertine nt to thec ha rge d c rim e that m e t the fe de ra l de finition. Here , by c ontra st, the fa c tua l a dm issions in the polic e re ports pe rta in a lm ost e ntire ly to posse s sion, whic h De fe n da nt c onc e de s c onstitute s a

n a ggravat e d fe lony . AFFIRM E D.

3