United States v. Francisco Godinez-Valencia

Good Law
573 F. App'x 617
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 16, 201413-30065California267 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Francisco Godinez-Valencia appeals the district court’s decision that his conviction under Oregon Revised Statutes section 163.365 qualifies as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo whether a past conviction constitutes an aggravated felony. Murillo-Prado v. Holder, 735 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.2013). Oregon’s statute proscribes sexual intercourse with a minor under fourteen years of age. See Or.Rev. Stat. § 163.365(1). Godinez-Valencia’s conviction under this statute qualifies as an aggravated felony, because it categorically constitutes sexual abuse of a minor under the three-part federal generic definition articulated in United States v. Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.1999).

First, the conduct proscribed by the statute is sexual. See United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir.2009). Second, the Statute protects minors. See id. Third, the statute proscribes only sexual conduct with children under the age of fourteen, and therefore prohibits conduct that is per se abusive. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.