United States v. Rogelio Perez-Gonzalez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rogelio PEREZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Barry T. Moskowitz (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Thomas, Fletcher
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50476 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-01138-BTM v. MEMORANDUM * ROGELIO PEREZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 25, 2010 ** Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rogelio Perez-Gonzalez appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for being a deported alien found in the United * 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). States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Perez-Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because his prior convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), and inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, in violation of California Penal Code § 273.5, do not qualify as crimes of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.
This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1191- 97 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that a conviction under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is categorically a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines); see also United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5 is categorically a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-50476