United States v. Marco Hernandez-Lara, 817 F.3d 651

Marco Hernandez-Lara was convicted of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and sentenced in the Northern District of California.
The Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C)) provide an 8-level enhancement if the defendant had a prior conviction for an "aggravated felony," which includes a "crime of violence" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16.
The government argued Hernandez’s 2009 California burglary conviction (Cal. Penal Code § 459) qualified as a § 16(b) "crime of violence," warranting the enhancement.
The district court concluded the California burglary conviction did not qualify under § 16(b) and imposed a 24-month sentence.
The government appealed the sentencing issue. After briefing, the Ninth Circuit decided Dimaya, holding § 16(b) unconstitutionally vague. The panel applied Dimaya and affirmed Hernandez-Lara’s sentence without the § 16(b)-based enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hernandez’s § 459 burglary is a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) as incorporated into U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C)	§ 16(b) permits treating burglary as a crime of violence here; enhancement applies	§ 16(b) does not clearly cover California burglary; district court correctly declined enhancement	Court held § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague (per Dimaya) as incorporated in the Guideline, so enhancement cannot stand

Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015) (held 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) void for vagueness)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)