Garcia-Plancarte

United States v. Garcia-Plancarte

Good Law
110 F. App'x 846
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 14, 2004No. 04-30095; D.C. No. CR-03-30052-MRHCalifornia191 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

We have repeatedly held that a state drug conviction for simple possession can constitute an “aggravated felony” within the meaning of § 2L1.2, so long as that conviction satisfies the two-pronged “aggravated felony” definition. See, e.g., United States v. Rios-Beltran, 361 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.2004). Because the 2003 amendments to § 2L1.2’s Application Notes did not change the manner in which “aggravated felony” is defined, this prior case law remains valid. Defendant’s conviction under California law for possession of methamphetamine satisfies the two-pronged “aggravated felony” definition because the offense 1) is punishable under the Controlled Substances Act, and 2) qualifies as a “felony” because it is punishable under California law by imprisonment exceeding one year. See id.; United States v. Ballesteros-Ruiz, 319 F.3d 1101, 1003 (9th Cir.2003).

Our decision in United States v. Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052, 1052-53 (9th Cir.2004), forecloses Defendant’s argument based on Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of…

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.