Zamora-Brambila

United States v. Zamora-Brambila

Good Law
90 F. App'x 521
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 25, 2004No. 03-30135; D.C. No. CR-02-00116-SEHCalifornia570 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Sergio Enrique Zamora-Brambila contends that the district court erred in imposing a 16 point sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A), arguing that his past conviction under South Dakota law for sexual contact with a child under 16 years of age does not constitute a crime of violence. See S.D. Codified Laws § 22-22-7 .

In determining whether a prior conviction is a qualifying offense for sentencing enhancement purposes, we initially apply the categorical approach set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 , 110 S.Ct. 2143 , 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), looking only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense, not the underlying facts. See United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959, 967-68 (9th Cir.2003).

If the statute criminalizes conduct that would not constitute a qualifying offense, we may “look a little further” and “consider whether other documentation and judicially noticeable facts demonstrate that the offense was, indeed, within the Guidelines’ definition.” United States v. Shumate, 329 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir.), amended by 341 F.3d 852 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 1118 , 157 L.Ed.2d…

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.