Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar RODRIGUEZ-OCAMPO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-10
Citations: 291 F. App'x 850
Docket Number: No. 07-30466
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Omar RODRIGUEZ-OCAMPO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 291
Pages: 850–851

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Omar RODRIGUEZ-OCAMPO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-30466.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 10, 2008.
Scott Kerin Fax, USPO-Office of the U.S. Attorney Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, Portland, OR, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Ellen C. Pitcher, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Omar Rodriguez-Ocampo appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rodriguez-Ocampo contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level enhancement for a prior crime of violence, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A), because he did not have a prior conviction for an aggravated felony. The district court did not err. The term "crime of violence" in § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) is not limited to "aggravated felonies" as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), but also encompasses felony convictions as defined by the application notes to § 2L1.2. See United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir .2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.