USA V. VICTOR CASTANEDA-MONTES, No. 15-50329 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 08 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-50329 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01103-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* VICTOR MANUEL CASTANEDAMONTES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 4, 2016 Pasadena, California Before: W. FLETCHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges and LEMELLE,** Senior District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. Victor Manuel Castaneda-Montes (“Castaneda”) challenges his sentence of 69 months following a conviction for attempted reentry into the United States following deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We affirm. The district court did not plainly err in applying a 16-level crime of violence enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Castaneda argues for the first time on appeal that his conviction for violating a restraining order with an act of violence or a credible threat of violence is not categorically a crime of violence. But he has not cited any case in which state courts have applied this statute to conduct that does not rise to the federal definition of a crime of violence, and he has not otherwise shown a “realistic probability” that the statute would be applied overbroadly. See Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007). The district court’s application of the enhancement was thus not plain error. Castaneda also argues that the sentencing scheme under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violates the Sixth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has held otherwise. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). And we have previously rejected the argument that this part of Almendarez-Torres was implicitly overruled by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. See United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 995–96 (9th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED.
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.
