USA V. JACKAR LOVE, No. 16-10295 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-10295 D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00587-HSG v. MEMORANDUM* JACKAR LOVE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 11, 2017** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. Jackar Love appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 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 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). Love contends that the district court improperly determined that his prior robbery conviction under California Penal Code § 211 was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2015) and, therefore, improperly determined his base offense level. This claim fails. Love necessarily committed either generic robbery or generic extortion, see United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 892 (9th Cir. 2008), both of which are enumerated crimes of violence. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1 (2015). Accordingly, his conviction is a categorical crime of violence. See Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d at 893 & n.10; see also U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.1 (2015) (defining “crime of violence” as having the meaning given that term in section 4B1.2 and its Application Note 1). Contrary to Love’s contention, the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), had no effect on the Guidelines. See Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 895 (2017). AFFIRMED. 2 16-10295

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.