United States v. Martin Alvarez-Yanez ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4046
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARTIN ALVAREZ-YANEZ, a/k/a Martin Abraves-Yanez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00152-CCE-1)
Submitted: January 13, 2014 Decided: January 17, 2014
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Kyle D. Pousson, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Martin Alvarez-Yanez appeals the forty-four month
sentence imposed following this court’s remand for resentencing
pursuant to United States v. Vann, 660 F.3d 771 (4th Cir. 2011)
(en banc). On appeal, Alvarez-Yanez challenges the district
court’s application of a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2011), upon finding that he had been
deported after being convicted of a crime of violence. Finding
no error, we affirm.
In reviewing a sentence, we must ensure that the
district court did not commit any “significant procedural
error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable
Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). We review de novo the issue of whether a prior
conviction constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of a
sentencing enhancement. United States v. Diaz-Ibarra, 522 F.3d
343, 347 (4th Cir. 2008).
A defendant like Alvarez-Yanez who is convicted of
illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2012), faces a
sixteen-level increase to his base offense level if he
previously was deported from the United States following “a
conviction for a felony that is . . . a crime of violence.”
USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Here, the district court applied
2
this enhancement based on Alvarez-Yanez’s prior conviction for
taking indecent liberties with a child, in violation of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1 (2013). Alvarez-Yanez relies on Vann to
argue that this conviction does not constitute a “crime of
violence” for purposes of USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
We have recently held, in a published opinion, that a
North Carolina conviction for taking indecent liberties with a
minor qualifies categorically as sexual abuse of a minor, and
therefore upheld an enhancement under the very Guideline
provision at issue here. United States v. Perez-Perez, 737 F.3d
950, 951 (4th Cir. 2013). Alvarez-Yanez’s arguments to the
contrary are therefore foreclosed. Accordingly, the district
court did not err in applying the challenged enhancement.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3