Court Opinion

ID: 2793039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-04-10 20:01:15.689616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:11.791896
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                APR 10 2015

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

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-50230

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02616-BEN-1

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ADRIAN TOLEDO-MARTINEZ,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                   Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted April 8, 2015**
                               Pasadena California

Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges and DONATO,*** District Judge.

        *
             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).
        ***
             The Honorable James Donato, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
      Defendant Adrian Toledo-Martinez appeals his conviction and sentence for

being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and affirm.

      The defendant argues that his Washington Revised Code § 69.50.401

convictions for delivery of cocaine and heroin are not categorical drug trafficking

offenses. However, we recently rejected the same argument advanced by the

defendant, that § 69.50.401(a) is categorically overbroad because it fails to exempt

acts of “administering” drugs. See United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047,

1052-55 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court did not err when it denied the motion to

dismiss the indictment and applied a 12-level increase to the base offense level

pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).1

      AFFIRMED.

      1
      United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §
2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (Nov. 2013).
                                         2