United States v. Jose Flores-Mejia
687 F.3d 1213
9th Cir.2012Background
- Flores-Mejia, an alien, was twice convicted of robbery under California Penal Code § 211 (1994 and 1996).
- Deported to Mexico in 2009 and illegally reentered the U.S. in 2010, after which he pled guilty to unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The Presentence Report recommended a 16-level offense-level enhancement for two prior violent-crime convictions under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
- Flores-Mejia challenged the enhancement on the grounds that California § 211 convictions are not categorically crimes of violence following a California Supreme Court decision (Anderson).
- The district court denied the challenge and imposed the enhancement; the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo whether a prior conviction is a crime of violence under § 2L1.2.
- The court ultimately held that a California § 211 conviction remains a crime of violence under the enumerated-offenses approach in § 2L1.2 and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 211 robbery is categorically a crime of violence under § 2L1.2. | Flores-Mejia argues Anderson broadens § 211, removing it from categorization. | Becerril-Lopez forecloses Flores-Mejia’s claim; Anderson does not irreconcilably conflict. | Yes; remains a crime of violence under enumerated offenses. |
| Does Leocal control the § 2L1.2 analysis of § 211 as a crime of violence? | Flores-Mejia relies on Leocal to argue broader conduct not requiring intent. | Leocal does not control § 2L1.2 enumerated-offenses analysis; § 2L1.2 uses its own approach. | No; Leocal does not apply to the enumerated-offenses approach in § 2L1.2. |
| Is the § 211 conviction categorically within the enumerated offenses definition of crime of violence? | Anderson broadens California robbery, possibly excluding intentional-force requirement. | Enumerated-definition does not require mandating the intentional-use element. | Yes; § 211 remains a crime of violence under § 2L1.2. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2008) (§ 211 categorically a crime of violence for § 2L1.2 purposes (extortion))
- United States v. Gomez-Leon, 545 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2008) (enumerated-offense approach to crime of violence; Leocal does not apply)
- United States v. Narvaez-Gomez, 489 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2007) (discusses the element-based definition vs enumerated offenses)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (U.S. (2004)) (defines crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (active use versus negligent))
- Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (U.S. (2003)) (definition of extortion in crime-of-violence context)
- People v. Anderson, 252 P.3d 968 (Cal. 2011) (California decision addressing § 211 scope)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc test for irreconcilable circuit decisions)