Opinion ID: 3029847
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Marin-Navarette and Gonzalez-Vela

Text: The crux of the Eleventh Circuit’s rejection of MarinNavarette’s argument that his prior conviction was not for an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) because it was a misdemeanor was a citation to its earlier decision in United States v. Christopher, 239 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2001). See Marin-Navarette, 244 F.3d at 1286-87. In Christopher, the court had concluded that a shoplifting offense with a maximum sentence of one year could be an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(G) even though it was not a “felony,” reasoning along much the same lines as we did in GonzalezTamariz. See 239 F.3d at 1193 (“We discern a clear intent in the statute to include as an ‘aggravated felony’ any theft offense for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year. Accordingly, it does not matter that Christopher’s theft offense is one for which the term of imprisonment is at most one year.”). No further discussion of the obvious distinction between § 1101(a)(43)(G) and § 1101(a)(43)(A) was undertaken by the