Opinion ID: 802823
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ramos’s Prior Deportation

Text: Ramos argues that his prior conviction for burglary under California Penal Code § 4592 did not qualify as an “aggra- 1 The district court concluded that Ramos’s final sentence could be justified either as a downward departure under Guidelines § 5K2.0 or as a below-Guidelines sentence based on the district court’s discretion under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005) and the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 2 That statute subjects to punishment “[e]very person who enters [various enumerated structures] . . . with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony.” Cal. Penal Code § 459. UNITED STATES v. RAMOS-MEDINA 7307 vated felony.” Ramos was removable irrespective of whether his prior conviction was for an aggravated felony because he had entered this country illegally. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). The aggravated felony determination was relevant, however, because it was a prerequisite to the immigration authorities’ decision to deport Ramos via the expedited administrative removal procedure and their determination that he was not eligible for discretionary relief. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1228(b), 1229c(a)(1); United States v. Garcia-Martinez, 228 F.3d 956, 960 (9th Cir. 2000). Ramos argues that the district court should not have allowed this tainted deportation to serve as the predicate to criminal prosecution for post-deportation re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. See generally United States v. UbaldoFigueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2004) (describing what a § 1326 defendant must prove to prevail in such a collateral attack on his prior deportation). [1] Our decisions in United States v. Becker, 919 F.2d 568 (9th Cir. 1990), and Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2011), establish that burglary under California Penal Code § 459 is categorically a crime of violence and thus an “aggravated felony” for the purposes of the INA. We therefore affirm Ramos’s conviction. In Becker, we held that burglary under California Penal Code § 459 qualified as a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines. 919 F.2d at 573. The defendant in Becker had prior convictions for burglary under California Penal Code § 459 when he was convicted of bank robbery. Id. at 570. The district court held that each of the prior convictions counted as a “crime of violence” and sentenced the defendant accordingly. Id. The Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time defined “crime of violence” by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 16. Id. at 569 (citing U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (1988)). Subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 16 provided that any offense “that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may 7308 UNITED STATES v. RAMOS-MEDINA be used in the course of committing the offense” was a “crime of violence.” Accordingly, we examined whether burglary under California Penal Code § 459 by its nature involved a substantial risk of force. Becker, 919 F.2d at 571. We reasoned that “[a]ny time a burglar enters a dwelling with felonious or larcenous intent there is a risk that in the course of committing the crime he will encounter one of its lawful occupants, and use physical force against that occupant either to accomplish his illegal purpose or to escape apprehension.” Id.; see also Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 10 (2004) (burglary is “[t]he classic example” of a felony that involves a substantial risk of physical force under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)). We concluded that California burglary was a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and the then current Sentencing Guidelines. Becker, 919 F.2d at 573; see also Park, 649 F.3d at 1178-80. After we decided Becker, the Sentencing Commission removed the reference to 18 U.S.C. § 16 from the relevant section of the Sentencing Guidelines and replaced it with the Commission’s own definition of “crime of violence.” See United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (citing U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii)). Under the new definition, a crime is a “crime of violence” if it is included in a categorical list of generic “crimes of violence” or is some other “offense under federal, state, or local law that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii). Since crimes that present merely a risk of force are not necessarily “crimes of violence” under the new definition, the revision rendered Becker inapplicable to sentencing for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. It did not, however, disturb Becker’s conclusion that burglary under § 459 qualifies as a “crime of violence” for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and other statutes that incorporate 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) by reference, including the INA. We recognized the continued vitality of Becker as a construction of the INA in Lopez-Cardona, 662 F.3d at 1112-13. UNITED STATES v. RAMOS-MEDINA 7309 The petitioner in Lopez-Cardona, like the defendants in Becker, had been convicted of burglary under § 459. Id. at 1111. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals determined that this conviction qualified as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), and that the petitioner was therefore ineligible for withholding of removal. Id. at 1112. On appeal, we considered whether our decision in Aguila-Montes that burglary under § 459 was not categorically a “crime of violence” under the current version of the Sentencing Guidelines overruled Becker’s holding that such burglary was categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). Id. at 1112-13. We reasoned that our recognition in Aguila-Montes that § 459’s unlawfulness requirement was different than federal generic burglary’s unlawfulness requirement did not change the fact that the conduct prohibited by § 459 involved a substantial risk of force. Every violation of § 459 might not present that level of risk, but “the proper inquiry for the categorical approach is whether the conduct covered by the crime presents the requisite risk of injury ‘in the ordinary case.’ ” Id. at 1112 (quoting James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192, 208 (2007); see also United States v. Park, 649 F.3d 1175, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that § 459 is categorically a “crime of violence” under Guidelines § 4B1.2(a)(2) because “the usual or ordinary firstdegree burglary in California involves conduct that presents a serious risk of physical violence and injury to others”). Consequently, we concluded that Becker’s construction of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) remained good law in the immigration context and made the petitioner ineligible for withholding of removal. Id. We recently reached an identical result in Chuen Piu Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 877-78 (9th Cir. 2011). In that case, as in Lopez-Cardona, the petitioner argued that Aguila-Montes implied that a conviction under § 459 is no longer a “crime of violence” under the INA. Id. at 877. Again, however, we recognized that Aguila-Montes “did not contradict or affect Becker’s holding that first-degree burglary under 7310 UNITED STATES v. RAMOS-MEDINA § 459 is a crime of violence because it involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the course of committing the offense.” Id. at 878 (citing Lopez-Cardona, 662 at 1113). Like the defendant in Becker and the petitioners in LopezCardona and Kwong, Ramos was convicted for burglary under California Penal Code § 459. And just as in those cases, we conclude that the conviction is a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) because the crime of burglary involves a substantial risk of harm in the ordinary case. See, e.g., Park, 649 F.3d at 1179-80. Ramos argues that we should not consider ourselves bound by the decisions in Lopez-Cardona and Kwong because he presents a different argument than did the petitioners in those cases. In support of that proposition he cites Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 511 (1925) (“Questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents.”). See also, e.g., Galam v. Carmel (In re Larry’s Apartment, L.L.C.), 249 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that a question lurked in the record of a previous case because “we had no occasion to consider” it). The continuing vitality of Becker was not an issue that “merely lurk[ed] in the record” of Lopez-Cardona and Kwong, however. That was the central question. We are bound by the decisions in Lopez-Cardona and Kwong. There has been no change in the relevant statutes or regulations, nor in any governing authority, notably an intervening decision of the Supreme Court.3 Absent such a change, 3 Both Lopez-Cardona and Kwong were decided after Aguila-Montes and the California decisions Ramos cites: People v. Parson, 187 P.3d 1, 17 (Cal. 2008); People v. Cole, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 526, 529, 540 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007); People v. Nguyen, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 840, 841, 844 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995); People v. Felix, 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 860, 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994); People v. Salemme, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 398, 399, 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). UNITED STATES v. RAMOS-MEDINA 7311 only an en banc panel of our court may overrule or revise the binding precedent established by a published opinion. As we observed in Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc): “A goal of our circuit’s decisions, including panel and en banc decisions, must be to preserve the consistency of circuit law. The goal is codified in procedures governing en banc review. See 28 U.S.C. § 46; Fed. R. App. P. 35.” This panel is not free to disregard the decision of another panel of our court simply because we think the arguments have been characterized differently or more persuasively by a new litigant. To be sure, if we were persuaded by Ramos’s arguments, we could ourselves ask our court to take the subject up en banc, and that happens from time to time. See, e.g., Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 642 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). We have not, however, been persuaded to take that course here. We affirm Ramos’s conviction.