United States v. Mendez-Sosa, No. 13-10664 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of unauthorized reentry into the United States after deportation. In sentencing Defendant, the district court assessed a 16-level enhancement based on its conclusion that Defendant was previously convicted in New Jersey of an offense the district court concluded was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in imposing the 16-level sentencing enhancement, as (1) Defendant, who pled guilty to the New Jersey offense, was “convicted of an offense” under Chapter Four of the sentencing guidelines; and (2) the conduct for which Defendant was convicted fit within the guideline definition of a forcible sex offense and thus the definition of a crime of violence.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a sentence for unauthorized reentry into the United States after deportation, in a case in which the district court assessed a 16-level enhancement based on its conclusion that the defendant was previously convicted of Criminal Sexual Contact under section 2C:14-3(b) of New Jersey’s Criminal Justice Conduct Code, an offense the district court concluded was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The panel held that the applicable definition of “conviction,” for purposes of implementing the sentencing guidelines in the immigration context, is to be found in federal law, not state law; and that Chapter Four of the sentencing guidelines, and not the Immigration and Nationality Act, provides the proper definition of “conviction” for purposes of the enhancement. The panel held that under Chapter Four’s definitions, the defendant, who pled guilty to the New Jersey offense, was “convicted of an offense,” which gave rise to a “prior sentence,” which received at least one criminal history point. The panel held that because the New Jersey statute is divisible and includes alternatives that do not involve the absence of consent, the district court properly applied the modified-categorical approach to determine that the defendant was convicted of the statutory alternative involving UNITED STATES V. MENDEZ-SOSA 3 lack of consent. The panel concluded that based on the defendant’s admission in his plea colloquy before the New Jersey tribunal, the conduct for which he was convicted fit within the guideline definition of a forcible sex offense, and thus the definition of crime of violence.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 13, 2015.
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.