Court Opinion

ID: 3210575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-08 20:00:58.970566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:29.657340
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             JUN 08 2016
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-50329

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01103-LAB-1

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
VICTOR MANUEL CASTANEDA-
MONTES,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                     Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                        Argued and Submitted May 4, 2016
                              Pasadena, California

Before: W. FLETCHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges and LEMELLE,** Senior
District Judge.

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
       **
             The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
      Victor Manuel Castaneda-Montes (“Castaneda”) challenges his sentence of

69 months following a conviction for attempted reentry into the United States

following deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We affirm.

      The district court did not plainly err in applying a 16-level crime of violence

enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Castaneda argues for the first time on

appeal that his conviction for violating a restraining order with an act of violence

or a credible threat of violence is not categorically a crime of violence. But he has

not cited any case in which state courts have applied this statute to conduct that

does not rise to the federal definition of a crime of violence, and he has not

otherwise shown a “realistic probability” that the statute would be applied

overbroadly. See Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007). The

district court’s application of the enhancement was thus not plain error.

      Castaneda also argues that the sentencing scheme under 8 U.S.C. § 1326

violates the Sixth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has held otherwise.

See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). And we have

previously rejected the argument that this part of Almendarez-Torres was

implicitly overruled by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. See United States v.

Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 995–96 (9th Cir. 2006).

      AFFIRMED.