United States v. Edwin Herrera-Ramirez , 623 F. App'x 347 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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, No. 14-10481
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00687-JGZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EDWIN OSWALDO HERRERA-
RAMIREZ, 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 Herrera-
Ramirez 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