Court Opinion

ID: 3157292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-11-23 22:01:02.986299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:38.868226
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          NOV 23 2015

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-10481

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00687-JGZ

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
EDWIN OSWALDO HERRERA-
RAMIREZ, a.k.a. Edwin Oswaldo Herrera,
a.k.a. Edwin Herrera-Ramirez,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted November 18, 2015**

Before:        TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Edwin Oswaldo Herrera-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea

conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Herrera-Ramirez challenges the district court’s imposition of the 16-level

sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Because Herrera-

Ramirez did not object below, we review for plain error. See United States v.

Gonzalez-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419, 426-28 (9th Cir. 2011).

      The district court did not plainly err by concluding that Herrera-Ramirez’s

conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Nevada Revised

Statutes § 200.471, constituted a categorical “crime of violence” for purposes of

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). See Camacho-Cruz v. Holder, 621 F.3d 941, 943

(9th Cir. 2010) (section 200.471 constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 16(a)); United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 2009)

(reasoning of cases addressing the “crime of violence” definition under 18 U.S.C.

§ 16(a) applies to cases involving U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2). As such, no modified

categorical analysis was required. See Grajeda, 581 F.3d at 1189. Further, the

district court did not err by failing to consider the length of Herrera-Ramirez’s

prior term of imprisonment; the Guideline does not define “crime of violence” by

reference to the length of the defendant’s sentence. See U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) & cmt. n.1(B)(iii).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    14-10481