United States v. Mario Avila, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20993

Mario Vasquez Avila, a Mexican national, repeatedly entered the U.S. illegally and accrued multiple state convictions, including a 1994 California conviction for first-degree burglary (dwelling) after pleading guilty.
He was indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (illegal reentry) and pleaded guilty; no written plea agreement.
The PSR applied an eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) because his prior burglary was treated as an “aggravated felony” (a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16).
The district court overruled Avila’s objection, adopted the PSR range (30–37 months), and imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 37 months.
Avila appealed, arguing (1) California first-degree burglary is not a “crime of violence” under § 16 (invoking Descamps), so the eight-level enhancement was improper, and (2) the district court failed to give an adequate individualized explanation for the sentence.

Issue	Avila’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether California first-degree burglary (Cal. Penal Code §§ 459, 460(a)) is a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and thus an aggravated felony for § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C)	Descamps shows CA burglary is broader than generic burglary and thus cannot qualify; statute lacks an unlawful-entry element and covers minor thefts	§ 16(b) asks whether the offense, by its nature, presents a substantial risk that force may be used; CA first-degree burglary (dwelling) inherently presents that risk	Court held CA first-degree dwelling burglary qualifies as a crime of violence under § 16(b); enhancement was proper
Whether the district court’s oral explanation of sentence was procedurally adequate	The court failed to conduct a sufficiently individualized assessment or to address Avila’s non-frivolous variance arguments	The court discussed Avila’s history/characteristics and public-safety concerns and showed a reasoned basis for the within-guidelines sentence	Court held the explanation was sufficient and there was no procedural error

Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (§ 16(b) focuses on offenses that, by their nature, present a substantial risk that force will be used; burglary is a classic example)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (categorical approach limits use of non-divisible statutes for ACCA; holding limited to ACCA context)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definition of generic burglary for statutory-comparison purposes)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review; procedural and substantive steps)
Aparicio-Soria v. United States, 740 F.3d 152 (4th Cir. 2014) (categorical-approach requirement and reliance on controlling interpretations of state statutes)
Mendoza-Mendoza v. United States, 597 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2010) (presumption of substantive reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)