USA V. CARLOS CEDANO-PEREZ, No. 12-10239 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 07 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-10239 D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00421-JCMVCF-1 v. CARLOS ALBERTO CEDANO-PEREZ, AKA Carlos Arturo Cedano-Perez, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 5, 2013** Pasadena, California Before: McKEOWN, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Carlos Cedano-Perez appeals his below-guidelines 46-month sentence following a conditional guilty plea to illegal reentry into the * 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). United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Cedano-Perez contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level increase for a prior crime of violence, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), based upon Cedano-Perez s 2000 Nevada conviction for battery with substantial bodily harm. Cedano-Perez contends that he is actually innocent of the Nevada offense, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Absent denial of right to counsel, Cedano-Perez misunderstands the power of our court to review his Nevada conviction. See Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 376, 121 S. Ct. 1578, 1580, 149 L.Ed.2d 590 (2001) (prohibiting collateral attack of prior state conviction in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding); Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 114 S. Ct. 1732, 128 L.Ed.2d 517 (1994) (prohibiting collateral attack of prior state conviction at federal sentencing proceeding). As Cedano-Perez had counsel during his state court criminal proceedings, the district court appropriately concluded that Cedano-Perez could not collaterally attack his Nevada conviction at his federal sentencing.1 See United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 295 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (9th 1 We do not consider here whether Cedano-Perez could challenge his state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as a rare case[] in which there was previously no available channel of review due to no fault of his own. See Daniels, 532 U.S. at 376. -2- Cir. 2002); United States v. Gutierrez-Cervantez, 132 F.3d 460, 462 (9th Cir. 1997). AFFIRMED. -3-
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.
