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 ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. PAB LO FR

ANC ISC O PALAC IOSGOM EZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50132

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-02572-IEG-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 Irm a E. Gonz a le z , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d August 8, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia Subm ission Va c ate d Se pte m be r 8, 2014 Subm i ssion Va c ate d June 15, 2015 R e subm itte d M arc h 22, 2016 B e fore : WARDLAW , C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED MAR 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pa

blo Fra nc isc o Pa la c ios-Gom e z (“ Pa la c ios” ) a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for ille g a l re e ntry

unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Pa la c ios’ s m otion to dism iss the indic tm e nt unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1326(d). To c olla te ra l ly atta c k the va lidity

of his prior re m ova l orde r, Pa l a c ios m ust show, a

m ong othe r things, tha

t “ the e n try

of the orde r wa s funda

m e nta lly unfa ir.” Id. § 1326(d)(3). “ An unde rly ing re m ova l orde r is funda m e nta lly unfa i r if (1) an a lie n’ s due proc e ss rights we re viola te d by de fe c ts in the unde rly ing de p ortation proc e e ding, a nd (2) he suffe re d pre

judic e a s a

re sult of the d e fe c t s.” Unite d State s v . Pallare

s-Galan , 359 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th C ir. 2004) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). B e c a

use Pa l a c ios’ s 2005 c onvic t ion for a ggrav at e d robbe ry unde r Te xa s Pe na l C ode § 29.03 is a n a ggravate d

fe l ony

“ c rim e of viole nc e ” unde r the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h, his prior re m ova l on the b a sis of tha

t c o nvic tion wa s not funda m e nta lly unfa ir. A c onvic tion for a ggravate d robbe ry unde r Te xa s Pe na l C ode (“ TPC ” ) § 29.03 is not c ate goric a lly a c rim e of viole nc e . TPC § 29.03 doe s not ha v e “ a s a n e le m e nt the use , atte m

pte d use , or thre ate ne d use of phy sic a l forc e a ga i nst the pe rson or prope rty

of a nothe r.” 18 U.S.C . § 16(a ). Nor is theoffe nse c ate goric a lly a c rim e of viole nc e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 16(b), whic h e nc o m pa sse s a ny offe nse tha

t 2“ by

its na ture , involve s a

substa ntia l risk tha

t phy sic a l forc e ” will beuse d in c om m ission of the

c rim e . 1 TPC § 29.03 e xpre ssly inc o rporate s, a s a pre dic ate offe nse , robbe ry

a s de fine d in TPC § 29.02. Thede finition of robbery inc lude s a s an e l e m e nt “ inte ntiona lly , knowingly , or re c k le ssly c a us[ing] bodily

injury to anothe r.” Id. § 29.02(a )(1) (e m pha sis a d de d). R e a d in c o njunc tion, TPC §§ 29.02 and 29.03 m ake c le ar that a de fe nda nt who re c kle ssly

c a use s se rious bodily

injury to a n othe r while in the c o urse of c om m itting the ft m ay

be c o nvic te d of a ggravate d robbe ry . Thus, be c a

use a g g ravate d

robbe ry c an be c om

m itte d with the me ns re a of re c k le ssne ss, it is not a

c ate goric a l m atc h

for 18 U.S.C . § 16(b)’ s de finition of c rim e of viole nc e . Se e Fe rnande z-Ruiz v . Gonzale

s , 466 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th C i r. 2006) (e n ba

nc ) (holding tha

t the ge ne ric de finition of c rim e of viole n c e e xc lude s

“ offe nse s c om

m itte d through the

re c kle ss, or grossly

ne glige n t, use of forc e ” ). None the le ss, Pa l a c ios’ s c onvic tion is a c rim e of viole nc e unde r the m odifie d c ate goric a l a

pproa c h . W e m ay

e m ploy this a

pproa c h be c a

use TPC § 29.03 is a divisible sta tute . Se e De

sc amps v . Unite d State

s , 133 S. C t. 2276, 2282 (2013). The disjunc tive phra sing of TPC § 29.02(a ), Pa la c ios’ s c onvic tion doc um e n ts, a nd

1 In D imay a v . Ly nc h , 803 F.3d 1110 (9th C ir. 2015), we he l d tha t 18 U.S.C . § 16(b) is unc onstitutiona lly va gue . Id. at 1120. Pa l a c ios ha s not c ha lle nge d his prior re m ova l orde r ba se d on the unc onstitutiona l ity of § 16(b), a

nd we do not a ddre s s the va lidity

of § 16(b) in this disposition.

3Te xa s c ourts’ c onstruc tion of TPC § 29.03 de m onstra te the divisibility of the sta tute of c onvic tion. Se ege ne rally Almanza-Are nas v . Ly nc h , Nos. 09-71415, 10-73715, 2016 W

L 766753, a

t *4–8 (9th C ir. Fe b. 29, 2016). In addition, be c a use our inquiry

into funda

m e nta l unfa i rne ss re quire s us to de te rm ine whe t he r Pa la c ios wa s pre judic e d a s a

re sult of de fe c ts in his re m ova l proc e e dings, wem ay re vie w notic e a ble doc um e nts from his re c ord of c o nvic tion e ve n if thosedoc um e nts we re ne ve r introduc e d at his re m ova l he aring. Se e Unite d State s v . Bustos-Oc hoa , 704 F.3d 1053, 1056–57 (9th C i r. 2012) . Pa la c ios’ s indic tm e nt a

nd ple a c olloquy c onfirm tha t he a c t e d with a

t le a st the m e ns re a of knowle dge , a nd thus ruleout thepossibility that he wa s c onvic te d unde r a non-ge ne ric ve rsion of TPC § 29.03. Knowle dge is a suffic ie ntly

c ulpa ble m e nta l sta

te to qua lify

a s c rim e of viole n c e . Se e Unite d State s v . Me lc h or-Me c e no , 620 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha t a C olora do m e na c i ng sta

tute

“ inc lude s the re quisite me n s re a of inte nt for a c rim e of viole nc e ” unde r U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 be c a

use it “ re quire s the de fe nda nt to knowingly

pla c e anothe r pe rson in fe ar of im m ine nt se rious bodily

ha rm ” ). He nc e , Pa la c ios’ s c onvic tion unde r TPC § 29.03 is a n a ggravate d

fe lony c rim e of viole nc e , a nd his prior re m ova l on theba sis of tha t c o nvic tion wa s not funda m e nta lly unfa ir.

4B e c a

use we a ffirm

Pa la c ios’ s c onvic tion for ille ga l re e ntry , his “ bundle d” se nte nc e ha s not be c om e “ unbundle d,” and we ne e d not va c ate his se nte n c e for fa lse c l a im of c itiz e nship unde r 18 U.S.C . § 911. C f. Unite d State

s v . Be nne tt , 363 F.3d 947, 955 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ Whe n a de fe nda nt is se nte nc e d on m

u ltiplec ounts and one of the m

is la te r va c ate d on a

ppe a l, the se nte nc i ng pa c k a g e c om e s

‘ unbundle d,’ ” and the e ntire se n te nc e m ust be va c ate d . (c ita

tion omitte d)). AFFIRM E D.

5