Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Danilo VASQUEZ-SALGUERO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-21
Citations: 429 F. App'x 635
Docket Number: No. 08-10377
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Danilo VASQUEZ-SALGUERO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLS, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 429
Pages: 635–635

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Danilo VASQUEZ-SALGUERO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10377.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 11, 2011.
Filed April 21, 2011.
Karen S. McDonald, Assistant U.S., USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeremy Ryan Moore, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Gloria Torres, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLS, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Lesley Wells, Senior District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Angel Danilo Vasquez-Salguero appeals the district court's application of a sixteen-level enhancement to his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. The district court concluded, without analysis, that Vasquez-Salguero's prior burglary conviction under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1507 qualified as a crime of violence.
We have previously held that Arizona burglary does not categorically match the generic federal definition. See United States v. Bonat, 106 F.3d 1472, 1475-76 (9th Cir.1997). Therefore, whether the appellant's prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence depends upon application of the modified categorical approach described in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). The district court's failure to conduct this analysis was plain error. Therefore, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing on an open record pursuant to United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 889 (9th Cir.2002)(en banc).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.