United States v. Jose Perez-Ramos
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose PEREZ-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Janis L. Sammartino (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Barry G. Silverman (author), Smith, Consuelo M. Callahan
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2010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. 09-50054 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-CR-00539-JLS v. MEMORANDUM * JOSE PEREZ-RAMOS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Agusto Perez-Ramos appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, 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). Perez-Ramos contends that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, because his prior conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age, in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 288(a), does not qualify as a crime of violence. He contends that Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), overruled United States v. Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Medina-Maella, 351 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2003). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 511-16 (9th Cir. 2009).
Perez-Ramos also contends that Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2294 (2009), effectively overruled Medina-Villa. This contention fails. See Nijhawan, 129 S.
Ct. at 2300.
Finally, Perez-Ramos’s contention that we must call for en banc review based on a conflict between Estrada-Espinoza and Medina-Villa is without merit.
See Pelayo-Garcia v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1010, 1013-16 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that Estrada-Espinoza and Medina-Villa set out “two different generic federal definitions of ‘sexual abuse of a minor’” and looking to both definitions to determine whether conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(d) qualifies as generic federal crime of “sexual abuse of a minor,” under categorical approach).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-50054