United States v. Jose Alonso-Gonzalez , 501 F. App'x 236 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-4581
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    JOSE JUAN ALONSO-GONZALEZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (7:10-cr-00146-BO-1)
    Submitted:   December 11, 2012             Decided:   December 20, 2012
    Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.   Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
    P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jose      Juan   Alonso-Gonzalez            appeals       the   thirty-seven-
    month sentence imposed following his guilty plea, without the
    benefit of a plea agreement, to illegal reentry by an alien who
    had been convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a), (b)(2) (2006).                          On appeal, Alonso-Gonzalez
    challenges the district court’s application of a sixteen-level
    sentencing enhancement, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
    Manual (USSG) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2010), upon finding that he
    previously 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).
    The Guidelines mandate a sixteen-level increase to the
    defendant’s 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       the    sentencing     enhancement
    2
    based    on    Alonso-Gonzalez’s       prior    conviction,            pursuant       to   a
    guilty    plea,    for     taking   indecent    liberties         with    a     child,     in
    violation of 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1
     (2009).                        Alonso-Gonzalez
    relies on our recent decision in United States v. Vann, 
    660 F.3d 771
     (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), to argue that this conviction
    does not constitute a “crime of violence” for purposes of USSG
    § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
    Alonso-Gonzalez’s       reliance        on        Vann     is     misplaced
    because Vann does not address the interpretation of “crime of
    violence” as it is defined in USSG § 2L1.2.                       Rather, Vann held
    that the North Carolina indecent liberties statute, viewed in
    light of Begay v. United States, 
    553 U.S. 137
     (2008), proscribes
    both    violent    and     non-violent    felonies,        as    the     term       “violent
    felony” is defined in 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(2)(B) (2006).                                Thus,
    our decision in Vann does not determine the outcome in this
    case.
    For purposes of USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), a “crime of
    violence” includes “sexual abuse of a minor.”                     USSG § 2L1.2 cmt.
    n.1(B)(iii).       We have concluded that “sexual abuse of a minor”
    does not require the use, or threatened use, of physical force
    against       another,     but   “means   the    perpetrator’s            physical         or
    nonphysical       misuse    or   maltreatment    of    a    minor      for      a   purpose
    associated with sexual gratification.”                Diaz-Ibarra, 
    522 F.3d at 350, 352
     (internal quotation marks omitted).
    3
    To        determine       whether      Alonso-Gonzalez’s             indecent
    liberties conviction was a crime of violence for purposes of
    USSG §     2L1.2, we may apply the categorical approach set out in
    Taylor v. United States, 
    495 U.S. 575
     (1990), unless the statute
    proscribes a number of offenses, not all of which qualify as
    crimes    of     violence.        “Under      Taylor,      we     look    only    to        the
    statutory      definition        of     the   state      crime     and    the    fact        of
    conviction to determine whether the conduct criminalized by the
    statute, including the most innocent conduct, qualifies as a
    ‘crime of violence.’”             Diaz-Ibarra, 
    522 F.3d at 348
    .                   To find
    the     categorical      approach        inapplicable,           “there    must        be     a
    realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the
    state would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the
    definition of crime of violence.”                 
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks
    omitted).
    With       respect     to     
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14
    –202.1,          we
    conclude that there is no realistic probability that a violation
    of the statute could occur without the “misuse or maltreatment
    of a minor for a purpose associated with sexual gratification.”
    Diaz–Ibarra, 
    522 F.3d at 352
     (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Therefore,       we    apply   the      categorical       approach.         Using       that
    approach, we conclude that a violation of 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14
    –
    202.1    constitutes      a    crime     of   violence      for    purposes       of    USSG
    § 2L1.2.
    4
    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
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-4581

Citation Numbers: 501 F. App'x 236

Judges: Motz, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/20/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024