Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jose Delgado CASTAÑON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-16
Citations: 86 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 03-10165; D.C. No. CR-02-01832-RCC
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jose Delgado CASTAÑON, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 317–317

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jose Delgado CASTAÑON, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 03-10165.
D.C. No. CR-02-01832-RCC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
Decided Jan. 16, 2004.
Raquel Arellano, USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Peter Eric Herberg, FPDAZ — Federal Public Defender’s Office (Tucson), Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The United States appeals the sentence imposed on Jose Delgado Castañon following his guilty plea to illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The United States contends, and Castañon concedes, that United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.2003), which was decided after the sentencing in this case, is contrary to the district court's conclusion that Castañon's prior conviction does not qualify for the 16-level "crime of violence" enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A).
We therefore VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing with instructions to impose the 16-level enhancement required under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A).
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. Castañon has preserved the issue in the event another case prevails on a petition for rehearing or on Supreme Court review.