United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18924
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ruiz-Apolonio pleaded guilty in California to forcible rape (Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(2)) for 2002 conduct; conviction finalized in 2007.
- He was deported in 2009 and reentered the U.S. without permission in 2009.
- He pled guilty in 2010 to one count of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- District court treated the § 261(a)(2) conviction as a crime of violence, applying a 16-level enhancement.
- Total offense level became 21; criminal history score was 6, yielding a Guideline range of 46–57 months.
- Ruiz challenged the recency-point calculation and good-time credit interpretations, and appealed the overall sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §261(a)(2) is categorically a crime of violence | Ruiz contends §261(a)(2) does not fit Note 1(B)(iii) as a forcible sex offense | Ruiz argues the statute may criminalize conduct outside the generic crime of violence | Yes; §261(a)(2) is categorically a crime of violence |
| Whether recency points were properly applied | State that amendments proposing removal rendered variance necessary | District court should vary downward; amendment not retroactive | District court did not err in applying recency points; admissible variance not required |
| Whether good-time credit calculations justify a variance | Barber/recency issues show potential overstatement of credit | Evidence insufficient to require variance based on good time rules | No substantive unreasonableness based on good-time calculation; no variance required |
| Whether the sentence was substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Record demonstrates sufficient aggravating factors; 46 months permissible | Sentence overstates culpability given history and age | Sentence is substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennen, 596 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for crime-of-violence determination de novo; review of sentence for reasonableness)
- Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review; requires explanation and proper calculation of Guidelines)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review framework for sentences)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requires meaningful explanation of sentencing decisions)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach for evaluating statutes as crimes of violence)
- Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc; interpretation of 'crime of violence' for Note 1(B)(iii))
- Beltran-Munguia, 489 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2007) (forcible sex offenses scope in prior guidance)
- Gomez-Gomez II, 547 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc on whether §261(a)(2) is crime of violence)