United States v. Hernandez, No. 13-50632 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant plead guilty for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and his sentence was enhanced under section 1326(b)(2) after the sentencing judge found defendant's prior California conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm qualified as an aggravated felony. In the court's recent decision in United States v. Aguilera-Rios, the court held that, in the immigration context, California's felon in possession firearm statute is not a categorical match for the federal firearms offense. In this case, the court held that the same analysis in Aguilera-Rios applies in the sentencing context. Because the state felony in possession of a firearm statute under which defendant was convicted criminalizes more conduct than the federal felon in possession of a firearm statute, there is no categorical match. California does not prosecute cases involving antique firearms under California Penal Code 12021(a)(1). Consequently, the court concluded that the district court erred in applying an eight-level sentencing enhancement. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed a sentence and remanded for resentencing in an illegal-reentry case in which the district court enhanced the sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) after finding that the defendant’s prior conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under California Penal Code § 12021(a)(1) (2003) qualified as an aggravated felony under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). The panel held that the analysis applied in the immigration context in United States v. Aguilera-Rios, No. 12-50597, 2014 WL 4800292 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2014) (holding that California’s felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, which does not include an antique-firearm exception, is not a categorical match for the federal firearms offense), applies in the sentencing context. The panel observed that California does prosecute cases involving antique firearms under § 12021(a)(1), and held that the modified categorical approach is inapplicable because the definition of a firearm in the California Penal Code is not divisible. The panel concluded that the district court therefore erred in applying the enhancement.
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.