United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio
648 F.3d 749
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Gonzalez-Aparicio, born 1973 in Mexico, moved to the U.S. as a teenager.
- In 1999 he was arrested for sexual conduct with a minor in Arizona; later convicted under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1405 and deported in 2000.
- The 1999 conviction involved sexual contact with a minor under 15; the sentence was amended the day after deportation.
- He reentered the U.S. and was deported again in 2009; in April 2009 Border Patrol encountered him attempting to crawl through the border fence.
- He pled guilty to one count of attempted reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) in August 2009.
- The district court applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), treating the prior conviction as a crime of violence, yielding a Guideline range of 51–63 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 16-level enhancement is proper as a crime of violence | Gonzalez-Aparicio argues the enhancement may be improper if the prior Arizona conviction is not a qualifying 'crime of violence'. | Gonzalez-Aparicio contends the prior offense does not meet the generic 'crime of violence' definition for statutory rape. | affirmed; the court found no plain error in applying the enhancement |
| Standard of review for unpreserved sentencing questions | The government contends plain error review should apply; the defense argues de novo for a pure legal question. | Gonzalez-Aparicio seeks de novo review as a pure legal question with no prejudice. | plain error review applied; court held no reversible error under that standard |
| Whether Estrada-Espinoza's age-difference element applies to the 'statutory rape' definition for2L1.2 | Government argues the modified and/or pure definitions may support a 'statutory rape' categorization. | Gonzalez-Aparicio asserts the Arizona statute lacks the four-year age-difference element and may not qualify. | court held no plain error; ambiguous and unsettled authority; ultimately, the majority declined to remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez-Mendez, 486 F.3d 599 (9th Cir.2007) (statutory rape definitions inform 'statutory rape' as a crime of violence under some contexts)
- Rodriguez-Guzman, 506 F.3d 738 (9th Cir.2007) (defines 'minor' as under sixteen for generic statutory rape; discusses Taylor catalyst)
- Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc: defines sexual abuse of a minor with four elements including four-year age difference)
- Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507 (9th Cir.2009) (distinguishes the 'sexual abuse of a minor' generic definition from Estrada-Espinoza context)
- Rivera-Cuartas v. Holder, 605 F.3d 699 (9th Cir.2010) (explains when a statute may meet 'sexual abuse of a minor' or be broader than the generic offenses)
- Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir.2010) (addresses age considerations and definitions under statutory rape context)
- Castro, 607 F.3d 566 (9th Cir.2010) (an amended opinion addressing whether California sections meet 'statutory rape' as defined for violence)
- Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.2003) (plain error concerns when relying on PSR for modified categorical approach)
- Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir.2002) (PSR recitals of charging papers are insufficient to establish elements for modified categorical approach)
- Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc: clarifies modified categorical approach when missing elements exist)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (establishes categorical approach for evaluating prior convictions)