United States v. Alejandro Zuniga-Galeana, 799 F.3d 801

Alejandro Zuniga-Galeana pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to 41 months’ imprisonment.
At sentencing the PSR applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because of a 1991 Illinois conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/11–1.60(d)).
The Illinois conviction involved consensual sexual conduct when Zuniga (age 30) was at least five years older than a 15-year-old; he served 80 days and was deported soon after.
The plea agreement and PSR reflected the 16-level increase (plus other adjustments); Zuniga did not object at sentencing but sought a below-guidelines sentence on mitigation grounds.
On appeal Zuniga challenged use of the 1991 conviction as a § 2L1.2 “crime of violence,” arguing the Illinois statute is categorically broader than the generic definitions of “sexual abuse of a minor” and “statutory rape.”
The Seventh Circuit found the appellate claim forfeited (not waived) and reviewed for plain error, ultimately affirming application of the 16-level enhancement.

Issue	Zuniga's Argument	Government/District Court's Argument	Held
Whether Zuniga’s 1991 Illinois conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, triggering a 16-level enhancement	Illinois statute is categorically overbroad because it criminalizes consensual sex with victims under 17 (so generic "minor" should be under 16), so the conviction cannot serve as an enumerated predicate	The Illinois statute fits within the generic meaning of enumerated offenses ("sexual abuse of a minor"/"statutory rape"); prior precedent supports treating "minor" as under 18, so the 16-level increase applies	Affirmed: the conviction qualifies as a crime of violence; 16-level enhancement stands
Whether appellant waived the right to challenge the guidelines enhancement by not objecting below	Failure to object was not an intentional waiver; counsel argued mitigation but did not knowingly forgo the claim	Government argued counsel strategically waived the objection to preserve leniency	Court held the claim was forfeited (not waived) and subject to plain-error review

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (standard for waiver vs. forfeiture and plain-error review)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (categorical approach to predicate-offense matching)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (limits on using conduct vs. categorical-elements inquiry)
United States v. Martinez-Carrillo, 250 F.3d 1101 (7th Cir. precedent treating "minor" to include under 18 for sexual-abuse predicate)
United States v. Acosta-Chavez, 727 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. holding Illinois statute categorically overbroad)
United States v. Ramirez, 675 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. holding that an enumerated offense is a crime of violence under § 2L1.2)