USA V. EDWIN HERRERA-RAMIREZ, No. 14-10481 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 23 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-10481 D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00687-JGZ v. MEMORANDUM* EDWIN OSWALDO HERRERARAMIREZ, a.k.a. Edwin Oswaldo Herrera, a.k.a. Edwin Herrera-Ramirez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Edwin Oswaldo Herrera-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We * 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). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Herrera-Ramirez challenges the district court’s imposition of the 16-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Because HerreraRamirez did not object below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419, 426-28 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not plainly err by concluding that Herrera-Ramirez’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.471, constituted a categorical “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). See Camacho-Cruz v. Holder, 621 F.3d 941, 943 (9th Cir. 2010) (section 200.471 constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)); United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 2009) (reasoning of cases addressing the “crime of violence” definition under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) applies to cases involving U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2). As such, no modified categorical analysis was required. See Grajeda, 581 F.3d at 1189. Further, the district court did not err by failing to consider the length of Herrera-Ramirez’s prior term of imprisonment; the Guideline does not define “crime of violence” by reference to the length of the defendant’s sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) & cmt. n.1(B)(iii). AFFIRMED. 2 14-10481