gno.law

United States v. Ulyses Juarez-Aguilar

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50375 · 2010-08-02 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ulyses JUAREZ-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Fletcher (author), Stephen R. Reinhardt, Kim M. Wardlaw

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2010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. 09-50375 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-04323-MMA v. MEMORANDUM * ULYSES JUAREZ-AGUILAR, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 19, 2010 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Ulyses Juarez-Aguilar appeals from the 46-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). Juarez-Aguilar contends the district court erred when it applied a 16-level “crime of violence” adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), based on his prior conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, in violation of California Penal Code § 273.5. Juarez-Aguilar’s contention is foreclosed by 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 because the offense requires the intentional use of physical force against the person of another).

As Juarez-Aguilar concedes, his contention that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated is foreclosed. See, e.g., United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

2 09-50375

Cites, in this corpus