Opinion ID: 3054164
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Taylor Modified Categorical Approach

Text: [7] Determining that escape from custody does not categorically constitute generic obstruction of justice does not end the inquiry. Salazar-Luviano’s conviction could still qualify as an aggravated felony under the “modified” categorical approach if he himself had necessarily been convicted of all the elements of obstruction of justice. See Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602. “In making this determination, we . . . ‘conduct a limited examination of documents in the record of conviction.’ ” Renteria-Morales, 2008 WL 5192056, at  (quoting Ferreira, 390 F.3d at 1095). [8] Here, the parties acknowledge that, at the time of Salazar-Luviano’s offense, no judicial proceedings had been initiated against those he helped attempt to escape. Nor do the documents in the record of conviction evidence any such proceedings, and the government’s proposal that we “presume[ ] judicial proceedings [were] imminent” simply does not meet the bar. Salazar-Luviano could not have known of, and his conduct could not have had the natural and probable effect of interfering with, a judicial proceeding that did not exist. Because Salazar-Luviano’s specific conviction does not qualify as an obstruction of justice offense under the modified categorical approach, “the government has not met its burden of proving that the defendant committed an aggravated felony.’ ” Renteria-Morales, 2008 WL 5192056, at  (quoting Ferreira, 390 F.3d at 1095).