United States v. Ramiro Alvarado-Flores
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro ALVARADO-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Susan Graber, Edward Leavy
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2010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. 09-50268 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-CR-00172-MJL v. MEMORANDUM * RAMIRO ALVARADO-FLORES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 29, 2010 ** Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ramiro Alvarado-Flores appeals from the 75-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
* 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). Alvarado-Flores contends that the district court erred by determining that his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, because section 245(a)(1) does not contain the requisite use of force and is a general intent crime. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1191-97 (9th Cir. 2009).
Alvarado-Flores also contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year statutory maximum for an 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violation. He argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), has been undermined and that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b) is unconstitutional. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 846-47 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); see also United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-50268