United States v. Jose Jimenez-Lopez

Good Law
369 F. App'x 857
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 5, 201009-50156California277 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Jose Raul Jimenez-Lopez appeals from the 52-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Jimenez-Lopez contends that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, because his prior conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age, in violation of CaLPenal Code § 288(a), does not qualify as a crime of violence. He contends that Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), overruled United States v. Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.1999), and United States v. Medina-Maella, 351 F.3d 944 (9th Cir.2003). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 511-16 (9th Cir.2009).

Jimenez-Lopez contends that Nijhawan v. Holder, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2294 , 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009), effectively overruled Medina-Villa . This contention fails. See Nijhawan, 129 S.Ct. at 2300 .

Finally, Jimenez-Lopez’s contention that we must call for en banc review based on a conflict between…

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.