USA V. FRANK CORDOVA-GONZALEZ, No. 15-10342 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 03 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-10342 D.C. No. 4:14-cr-01696-RM v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK CORDOVA-GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Frank Cordova, a.k.a. Frank Efraim Cordova, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Frank Cordova-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Cordova-Gonzalez argues that the district court erred in imposing a sixteenlevel enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for his 2006 Nevada state court conviction for robbery pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.380. We review de novo the district court’s determination that a defendant’s prior state court conviction qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 889 (9th Cir. 2008). Contrary to his contention, Cordova-Gonzalez’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Harris, 572 F.3d 1065, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] conviction under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.380 categorically qualifies as a crime of violence.”). Furthermore, we note that the district court concluded that the 16-level enhancement required under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) overstated CordovaGonzalez’s criminal history, and accordingly varied downward from a guidelines range of 41-51 months to impose an 18-month sentence. AFFIRMED. 2 15-10342

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.