United States v. Leticia Rodriguez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leticia Llaguno RODRIGUEZ, 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
- Harry Pregerson (author), Thomas, Richard A. Paez
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 08 2011
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. 10-50300 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00570-BTM v. MEMORANDUM * LETICIA LLAGUNO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2011 ** Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Leticia Llaguno Rodriguez appeals from the 42-month sentence imposed following her 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). Rodriguez contends that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level enhancement, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, because her 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. She contends that United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 511-16 (9th Cir. 2009), holding that a violation of Cal. Penal Code § 288(a) is categorically a crime of violence, is inconsistent with Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). This contention lacks merit. See United States v. Farmer, 627 F.3d 416, 421-22 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we decline Rodriguez’s invitation that we seek en banc review of this issue.
Rodriguez also contends that Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2294 (2009), effectively overruled Medina-Villa. This contention fails.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50300