Acosta

United States v. Acosta

Good Law
185 F. App'x 590
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 14, 200605-10271California444 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

A jury convicted Defendant Andrew Acosta of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113 (a) and 2. The district *591 court sentenced him as a “career offender” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. We affirm.

1. The district court ruled that Defendant’s prior conviction for extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) was a qualifying crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. 1 United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749, 751 (9th Cir.1990), holds that a conviction under § 2113(a) is a “crime of violence” for purposes of the career offender provisions of the Guidelines. The plea agreement entered into by Defendant in relation to that conviction demonstrates that Selfa’s holding is applicable.

2. In sentencing Defendant as a career criminal under section 4B1.1, the district court also found that Defendant was 18 years or older at the time he was convicted of the instant offense. Defense counsel admitted during sentencing that Defendant met the age requirement. See United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez, 387 F.3d 799, 806 (9th Cir.2004) (“[Cjriminal defendants are bound by the admissions of fact made by their counsel in their presence and with their authority.”), vacated on other…

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.