United States v. Jose Jimenez-Lopez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Raul JIMENEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Gould, Smith
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2010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. 09-50156 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-CR-03345-BEN v. MEMORANDUM * JOSE RAUL JIMENEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 16, 2010 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Raul Jimenez-Lopez appeals from the 52-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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
* 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).
EG/Research § 1291, and we affirm.
Jimenez-Lopez 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).
Jimenez-Lopez 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, Jimenez-Lopez’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, 1013-1016 (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 a conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(d)
qualifies as the generic federal crime of “sexual abuse of a minor,” under the EG/Research 2 09-50156 categorical approach).
AFFIRMED.
EG/Research 3 09-50156