Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GODINEZ-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-16
Citations: 573 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 13-30065
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GODINEZ-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GODINEZ-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30065.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 16, 2014.
Greg Nyhus, Assistant U.S., Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Ruben L. Iniguez, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Godinez-Valencia appeals the district court's decision that his conviction under Oregon Revised Statutes section 163.365 qualifies as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo whether a past conviction constitutes an aggravated felony. Murillo-Prado v. Holder, 735 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.2013). Oregon's statute proscribes sexual intercourse with a minor under fourteen years of age. See Or.Rev. Stat. § 163.365(1). Godinez-Valencia's conviction under this statute qualifies as an aggravated felony, because it categorically constitutes sexual abuse of a minor under the three-part federal generic definition articulated in United States v. Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.1999).
First, the conduct proscribed by the statute is sexual. See United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir.2009). Second, the Statute protects minors. See id. Third, the statute proscribes only sexual conduct with children under the age of fourteen, and therefore prohibits conduct that is per se abusive. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Our holding compels rejection of Godinez-Valencia's alternative argument that Oregon Revised Statutes section 163.365 does not constitute sexual abuse of a minor under the sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 511-12 (9th Cir.2009) ("[D]ecisonaI law defining the term 'sexual abuse of a minor' in the sentencing context is informed by the definition of the same term in the immigration context and vice versa." (citations omitted)).