United States v. Jose Valencia-Mendoza, 912 F.3d 1215

Defendant Jose Manuel Valencia-Mendoza pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326) after a 2007 Washington state conviction for possession of cocaine (class C felony under RCW § 69.50.4013).
Washington’s general statutory maximum for a class C felony was five years, but the mandatory state sentencing grid (RCW 9.94A.517) produced a standard range of 0–6 months for Defendant given seriousness level I and offender score 0.
No aggravating findings were made by judge or jury, so Washington law required imposition within the 0–6 month range; the state court imposed 30 days.
At federal sentencing for unlawful reentry, the district court applied a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 (felony predicate defined as punishable by >1 year) based on the five-year statutory maximum and sentenced Defendant to 24 months.
Defendant appealed the sentencing enhancement, arguing the relevant inquiry is the actual maximum punishment he could have received (six months), not the theoretical statutory maximum (five years).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prior state conviction is a "felony" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 when the state statutory maximum exceeds one year but the mandatory state sentencing range actually applicable to the defendant is ≤1 year	Government: look to the statutory maximum in the state criminal statute (five years); sentencing enhancement applies	Valencia-Mendoza: look to the mandatory sentencing range actually applicable (0–6 months); no enhancement	The Ninth Circuit overruled prior circuit precedent and held courts must consider both elements and mandatory sentencing factors; because Defendant's applicable range was ≤1 year, the § 2L1.2 enhancement did not apply

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (court must not use a "hypothetical" enhanced federal crime based on facts not established in the conviction)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (categorical inquiry requires examining elements and sentencing factors; ambiguity favors the noncitizen)
United States v. Rodriguez, 553 U.S. 377 (interpreting "maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law" — distinguished here)
United States v. Rios-Beltran, 361 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2004) (prior Ninth Circuit precedent looking only to statutory maximum)
United States v. Murillo, 422 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005) (same)
United States v. Crawford, 520 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (applied Murillo)
United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. en banc 2011) (sister-circuit holding that mandatory state sentencing rules must be considered)

Sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing.