FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

No. 04-30196 Plaintiff-Appellee,

D.C. No.

v.  CR-03-02127-FVS

OCTAVIO HERMOSO-GARCIA,

OPINION Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Fred L. Van Sickle, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 8, 2005*

Seattle, Washington

Filed July 7, 2005

Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, M. Margaret McKeown,

and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bea

*The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without

oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

7955
COUNSEL

Nicholas Marchi, Kennewick, Washington, for the defendantappellant. 

James A. McDevitt and Robert A. Ellis, U.S. Department of

Justice, Yakima, Washington, for the plaintiff-appellee. 

OPINION

BEA, Circuit Judge: 

Octavio Hermoso-Garcia (“Hermoso-Garcia”), a native and

citizen of Mexico, was convicted of being an alien who reentered the United States after deportation without first obtaining permission for reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and

sentenced to sixty-three months’ imprisonment. HermosoGarcia now appeals the district court’s: (1) denial of his

motion to dismiss the indictment; (2) imposition of a 16-level

increase under the United States Sentencing Guidelines

(“U.S.S.G.” or “Sentencing Guidelines”) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii);

and (3) imposition of a 63-month sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm the convicUNITED STATES v. HERMOSO-GARCIA 7957
tion, but remand the sentence to the district court in light of

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and United

States v. Ameline, No. 02-30326, 2005 WL 1291977, at *11

(9th Cir. June 1, 2005) (en banc). 

I.

Hermoso-Garcia first entered the United States without

inspection in the early 1990s. In 1995, Hermoso-Garcia married a U.S. citizen and on May 12, 1995, his wife filed Form

I-130 (“Immigrant Petition For Relative, Fiancee or Orphan”)

seeking a visa for him on the basis of his having a U.S. citizen

spouse. On September 8, 1995, Hermoso-Garcia received an

“Approval Notice” stating that his I-130 Form application had

been approved. 

However, before receiving his “Approval Notice” as to the

I-130, Hermoso-Garcia was convicted on August 29, 1995 of

being an accomplice to second-degree assault in Yakima

County, Washington in violation of WASH. REV. CODE

§ 9A.36.021(1)(a) and WASH. REV. CODE § 9A.08.020. He was

then sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment. 

On August 14, 1997, based on his 1995 marriage to a U.S.

citizen, Hermoso-Garcia filed Form I-485, seeking an adjustment of status from one who had entered the United States

without inspection to the status of an alien lawfully admitted

for permanent residence pursuant to Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).1

 After

a hearing on his adjustment of status application before an

Immigration Judge, his application for adjustment of status

was denied on October 1, 1998 and he was ordered deported.2

1Under Section 245 of the INA, “[a]n alien physically present in the

United States who entered the United States without inspection” and who

is the beneficiary of an I-130 Form “may apply to the Attorney General

for the adjustment of his or her status to that of an alien lawfully admitted

for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (emphasis added). 

2Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), an individual may be statutorily precluded from seeking any adjustment of status on account of his having

7958 UNITED STATES v. HERMOSO-GARCIA
Hermoso-Garcia did not seek review of the Immigration

Judge’s decision. On October 15, 1998, Hermoso-Garcia was

deported from El Paso, Texas to Mexico. 

Sometime between October 15, 1998 and January 10, 2003,

Hermoso-Garcia again reentered the United States without

permission. On January 10, 2003, Hermoso-Garcia was

deported for a second time (this time from Otay Mesa, California to Mexico). 

In February 2003, Hermoso-Garcia again reentered the

United States without permission and on July 9, 2003, authorities arrested him in Yakima County, Washington. On July 10,

2003, the Government filed a complaint stating that HermosoGarcia was an alien found in the United States after deportation without permission in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On

July 15, 2003, the grand jury returned an indictment and the

Government charged Hermoso-Garcia with a violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326.3

committed a crime. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (“an alien convicted

of . . . a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political

offense) . . . is inadmissible.”). Such individual may nevertheless apply for

a waiver of the statutory preclusion pursuant to Section 212(h)(1)(B) of

the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B) (“The Attorney General may, in his

discretion, waive the application of [(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)] in the case of an

immigrant who is the spouse, parent, son or daughter of a citizen of the

United States . . . if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney

General that the alien’s denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son,

or daughter of such alien.”). Here, the Immigration Judge determined that

the statutory preclusion applied and treated Hermoso-Garcia’s application

for an adjustment of status pursuant to Section 245 as a Section 212(h)

waiver and denied such application. Since Hermoso-Garcia did not appeal

the immigration judge’s decision, we do not decide the question whether

second-degree assault under Washington State law is a crime of “moral

turpitude” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). 

3

8 U.S.C. § 1326 provides for criminal penalties on the part of: 

UNITED STATES v. HERMOSO-GARCIA 7959
The district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment and Hermoso-Garcia was tried before a jury and convicted. 

On March 11, 2004, Hermoso-Garcia was sentenced to 63

months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. In

accordance with the Presentence Investigation Report

(“PSR”), the district court determined that there was a base

offense level of 8 under the Sentencing Guidelines and

applied a 16-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)

(A)(ii) for a prior conviction that was a “crime of violence.”

The district court then reduced that offense level by 2 levels

for “acceptance of responsibility” pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 3E1.1(a). Hermoso-Garcia’s final offense level was 22.

II.

[1] This court reviews de novo the denial of a motion to

dismiss an indictment based on an interpretation of a federal

statute. See United States v. Gorman, 314 F.3d 1105, 1110

(9th Cir. 2002). We hold that Hermoso-Garcia’s approved I130 Form does not constitute “consent” to reenter the United

(a) any alien who — 

(1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed

or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter

(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the

United States, unless (A) prior to his reembarkation at a

place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General

has expressly consented to such alien’s reapplying for

admission; or (B) with respect to an alien previously denied

admission and removed, unless such alien shall establish

that he was not required to obtain such advance consent

under this chapter or any prior Act . . . . 

8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

7960 UNITED STATES v. HERMOSO-GARCIA
States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2). Rather, before an individual is allowed to enter this country legally, once his I-130

Form has been approved, he is still obligated to obtain an

adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1255(i); see also Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 879 (9th

Cir. 2002). Here, after a hearing before an Immigration Judge,

the Immigration Judge denied Hermoso-Garcia’s application

for an adjustment of status. As noted above, Hermoso-Garcia

did not appeal such denial. Accordingly, he did not have consent to enter or be in the United States. 

III.

With respect to the correctness of the sentence imposed on

Hermoso-Garcia, this court reviews a district court’s determination that a prior conviction constituted a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See United

States v. Sanchez-Sanchez, 333 F.3d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir.

2003). U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) defines “crime of violence” as including . . . any offense under . . . state . . . law

that has an element the use . . . of physical force against the

person of another.” Under the “categorical approach” delineated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Taylor v. United States,

495 U.S. 575 (1990), courts look “only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense.” Id. at

602. 

[2] Here, Hermoso-Garcia was convicted of being an

accomplice to second-degree assault in violation of WASH.

REV. CODE § 9A.36.021(1)(a)4 and WASH. REV. CODE

§ 9A.08.020.5 Subsection 1(a) of Washington’s second-degree

4The Washington State second-degree assault statute, WASH. REV. CODE

§ 9A.36.021(1)(a), provides, in pertinent part, that “(1) A person is guilty

of assault in the second degree if he or she, under circumstances not

amounting to assault in the first degree: (a) intentionally assaults another

and thereby recklessly inflicts substantial bodily harm.” 

5The Washington State accomplice liability statute, WASH. REV. CODE

§ 9A.08.020(2)(c), provides, in pertinent part that “A person is guilty of

a crime if it is committed by the conduct of another person . . . when he

is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the crime.” 

UNITED STATES v. HERMOSO-GARCIA 7961
assault statute requires a defendant to have “recklessly inflict-

[ed] substantial bodily harm” upon another person. WASH.

REV. CODE § 9A.36.021(1)(a). This language is indistinguishable from the statutes in United States v. Grajeda-Ramirez,

348 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that reckless

vehicular assault under Colorado law is a categorical crime of

violence under the Sentencing Guidelines because the perpetrator “must be the proximate cause of serious bodily injury

to another and must act with at least a reckless mental state”

(internal quotation marks omitted)), and United States v.

Ceron-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding

that attempted aggravated assault under Arizona law—which

can be committed by “recklessly causing any physical injury

to another person”—is a categorical crime of violence under

18 U.S.C. § 16(a)), because all three implicate the reckless

infliction of bodily harm. Therefore, we hold that Washington’s second-degree assault statute, WASH. REV. CODE

§ 9A.36.021(1)(a), is a categorical crime of violence. 

[3] Although we agree that the sixteen-level enhancement

was proper under the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines,

we cannot automatically affirm Hermoso-Garcia’s sentence

because the federal sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory. See United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct.

738, 764-67 (2005). Pursuant to United States v. Ameline,

2005 WL 1291977, at *11, we remand Hermoso-Garcia’s sentence to the district court for the district court to determine

whether it would have sentenced Hermoso-Garcia differently

under an advisory Guidelines system. If so, the district court

shall vacate Hermoso-Garcia’s sentence and re-sentence him

under the post-Booker advisory Guidelines. If not, HermosoGarcia’s sentence shall remain undisturbed. 

CONVICTION AFFIRMED and SENTENCE

REMANDED.

7962 UNITED STATES v. HERMOSO-GARCIA