Santiago-Pacheco

MEMORANDUM **

Ismael Santiago-Pacheco appeals the sentence imposed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b) after his conviction for illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). We affirm.

(1) Santiago first argues that the record contained insufficient evidence regarding his prior state felony conviction. Thus, he says, the district court could not determine that the felony was a crime of violence within the meaning of the relevant Sentencing Guideline. See USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). 1 We disagree. No doubt the district court had to perform a Taylor 2 analysis and, therefore, had to know just what state statute Santiago was convicted under. See United States v. Potter, 895 F.2d 1231, 1238 (9th Cir.1990). However, that does not mean that the state record, itself, must cite the precise statutory provision in every case. See United States v. Bonilla-Montenegro, 331 F.3d 1047, 1049-50 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 1205-07 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc). Here, the record makes it perfectly clear that Santiago’s State of Oregon conviction was for first degree voluntary manslaughter. See Or.Rev.Stat. § 163.118 (1993).

(2) Santiago then argues that first degree…