United States v. Hernandez-Lara, No. 13-10637 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThe government appealed defendant's sentence for illegal reentry, contending that the district court miscalculated the Sentencing Guidelines range applicable to defendant because the district court concluded that defendant's 2009 burglary conviction under California Penal Code 459 did not qualify as a “crime of violence” as defined in 18 U.S.C.16(b). After the government filed its appeal, the court held in Dimaya v. Lynch that the definition of violence that appears in section 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague. The court held that section 16(b), as incorporated in USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), is void for vagueness because the court was bound by Dimaya's holding and because the government offers the same arguments in favor of section 16(b)'s constitutionality that the court rejected in that decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a sentence for illegal reentry in a case in which the government challenged the district court’s conclusion that the defendant’s prior burglary conviction under California Penal Code § 459 did not qualify as a “crime of violence” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). Applying Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 110 (9th Cir. 2015), the panel held that the definition of crime of violence that appears in § 16(b), as incorporated in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), is void for vagueness.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 20, 2018.
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.