United States v. Mendez-Sosa, 782 F.3d 1061

Defendant Juan Alberto Mendez-Sosa pleaded guilty to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326) and was sentenced to 37 months.
District court applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a prior New Jersey conviction for Criminal Sexual Contact (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-3(b)).
The enhancement hinges on whether the prior offense qualified as a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines and whether the prior act counted as a "conviction" for Guidelines purposes.
Mendez-Sosa challenged the enhancement on two grounds: (1) he was not "convicted" as defined by applicable law; (2) the New Jersey offense was not a "crime of violence."
The plea colloquy included an admission that he "touched [the victim's] breasts ... without her consent," which the court used under the modified-categorical approach to identify the statutory alternative of lack of consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Which law defines "conviction" for the Guidelines enhancement?	Mendez-Sosa: state law (or INA) should govern, so he wasn't "convicted."	Government: a uniform federal definition in Chapter Four of the Guidelines controls.	Held: Chapter Four of the Sentencing Guidelines provides the applicable, uniform federal definition of "conviction."
2. Does the NJ Criminal Sexual Contact conviction qualify as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2?	Mendez-Sosa: the statute is divisible and may include non-forcible alternatives; his offense is not a crime of violence.	Government: applying the modified-categorical approach to plea colloquy shows the conviction was for lack of consent, a "forcible sex offense."	Held: The conviction fits the Guidelines' definition of a "forcible sex offense" (absence of victim consent); the 16-level enhancement was proper.

Almanzar-Arenas v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2014) (modified-categorical approach permits using plea colloquy and comparable records to identify the specific statutory alternative of conviction)
United States v. Leal-Felix, 665 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2011) (interpretation of sentencing guidelines reviewed de novo; federal uniform definitions preferred over state variance)
United States v. Cuevas, 75 F.3d 778 (1st Cir. 1996) (Chapter Four definitions govern criminal-history counting for federal sentencing)
United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2003) (guideline definitions govern in sentencing when different from statutory definitions)
United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of whether prior conviction is a crime of violence under the Guidelines)
United States v. Gallegos-Galindo, 704 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir. 2013) (a "forcible sex offense" includes any sex offense involving absence of the victim's consent)
United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2011) (treats lack-of-consent offenses as forcible sex offenses under Guidelines)
United States v. Quintero-Junco, 754 F.3d 746 (9th Cir. 2014) (applies modified-categorical approach to divisible state statutes)