United States v. Adrian Toledo-Martinez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian TOLEDO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Barry G. Silverman (author), Carlos T. Bea, Donato
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 10 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50230 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02616-BEN-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ADRIAN TOLEDO-MARTINEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 8, 2015** Pasadena California Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges and DONATO,*** District Judge.
* 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). *** The Honorable James Donato, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. Defendant Adrian Toledo-Martinez appeals his conviction and sentence for being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and affirm.
The defendant argues that his Washington Revised Code § 69.50.401 convictions for delivery of cocaine and heroin are not categorical drug trafficking offenses. However, we recently rejected the same argument advanced by the defendant, that § 69.50.401(a) is categorically overbroad because it fails to exempt acts of “administering” drugs. See United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1052-55 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court did not err when it denied the motion to dismiss the indictment and applied a 12-level increase to the base offense level pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).1 AFFIRMED.
1 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (Nov. 2013). 2