USA V. DANIEL ORTIZ, No. 18-35203 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 18-35203 D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01292-HZ 3:11-cr-00273-HZ-1 v. MEMORANDUM* DANIEL JESUS ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernández, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Daniel Jesus Ortiz appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Ortiz contends that his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3), is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Contrary to Ortiz’s assertion, assault with a dangerous weapon under section 113(a)(3) qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause of section 924(c)(3)(A) because the offense “necessarily entails at least the threatened use of violent physical force.” United States v. Gobert, 943 F.3d 878, 882 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the district court properly denied relief under section 2255. AFFIRMED. 2 18-35203

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.