USA V. GOSADA MUNOZ, No. 13-50544 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 1 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-50544 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01053-R MEMORANDUM* GOSADA MUNOZ, a.k.a. Tiny, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Gosada Munoz appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his guiltyplea conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing. * 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). Munoz contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 32(i)(1)(A) by failing to verify that he had reviewed and discussed the presentence report with counsel. The record reflects, and the government acknowledges, that the court failed to comply with Rule 32(i)(1)(A). See United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 862-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Munoz represents that he did not have the opportunity to review the revised presentence report materials and identifies arguments that he would have presented to the court if he had been given the opportunity. Accordingly, we cannot say that the error was harmless. See id. at 863. We, therefore, vacate and remand for resentencing. Because it will be relevant on remand, we also address Munoz’s contention that the district court erred by determining that his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon is a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). Munoz’s argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), “is categorically a crime of violence”). Contrary to Munoz’s contention, the holding of Grajeda was not abrogated by Ceron v. Holder, 747 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). See United States v. Jimenez-Arzate, 781 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. 2 13-50544
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.
