Court Opinion

ID: 2720591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-25 21:00:33.667501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:39.416570
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                        AUGUST 25 2014
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10452

             Plaintiff - Appellee,               D.C. No. CR 12-1495-TUC-CKJ

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
GERMAN ACOSTA-SALINAS,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                      Argued and Submitted August 11, 2014
                            San Francisco, California

Before: SILVERMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and WATSON, District
Judge.**

       German Acosta-Salinas appeals his conviction by conditional guilty plea and

sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
        **
             The Honorable Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
challenges both the district court’s (1) denial of his 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) motion

collaterally attacking his prior deportation, and (2) 16-level sentencing

enhancement based on a prior conviction for a “crime of violence.”

      The denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)

involves mixed questions of law and fact; we review the legal claims de novo and

the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d

672, 679-80 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo the district court’s determination

that a prior conviction constitutes a “crime of violence” under the United States

Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”). United States v. Gonzalez-Monterroso, 745

F.3d 1237, 1243 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

      Acosta-Salinas moved to dismiss the indictment pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(d), arguing that his prior conviction for sexual abuse under Arizona Revised

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13-1404 was not a crime involving moral turpitude and that

the immigration judge therefore incorrectly advised him that he was ineligible for

relief. We apply the modified categorical approach. See United States v.

Quintero-Junco, 754 F.3d 746, 751-52 (9th Cir. 2014). Pursuant to that approach,

and upon consideration of Acosta-Salinas’ record of conviction, we conclude that

both the immigration judge and district court correctly determined Acosta-Salinas’

sexual abuse conviction to be a crime of moral turpitude because Acosta-Salinas’

                                           2
intended sexual contact with the adult victim was without her consent and actually

harmed her. See Gonzalez-Cervantes v. Holder, 709 F.3d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir.

2013). The district court properly denied Acosta-Salinas’ Motion Challenging Prior

Deportation.

      Acosta-Salinas also argues that his conviction for sexual abuse is not a

“forcible sex offense” and that the district court erred in applying a 16-level

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) for a “crime of violence.” A

conviction under A.R.S. § 13-1404 for non-consensual sexual contact with a person

over fifteen years of age is a “forcible sex offense,” such that it constitutes a “crime

of violence” for purposes of the enhancement. See Quintero-Junco, 754 F.3d at

753-54. The sentence imposed by the district judge was not in error.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           3