Bernal-Mendoza

United States v. Bernal-Mendoza

Good Law
5 F. App'x 752
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 13, 2001No. 00-50264; D.C. No. CR-99-00353-RMBCalifornia265 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*753 MEMORANDUM ***

Because Bernal-Mendoza’s prior burglary conviction is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(G), the district court did not err in enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A). The charging and conviction documents demonstrate that the actual offense of which Bernal-Mendoza was convicted qualifies as a burglary offense. See Ye v. INS, 214 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2000) (defining “burglary” as “the unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime”).

The PSR is sufficient proof of BernalMendoza’s prior conviction because he did not challenge the factual basis for the sentencing enhancement. See United States v. Romero-Rendon, 220 F.3d 1159, 1165 (9th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 640 , 148 L.Ed.2d 546 (2000); see also United States v. Munoz, 233 F.3d 1117, 1127 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Romero-Rendon, 220 F.3d 1159 ). Moreover, the district court also considered the relevant charging and conviction documents.

Finally, we recently affirmed that a prior aggravated felony conviction is a sentencing factor and need not be alleged in the indictment or proved beyond a…

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.