From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Copas-Villegas

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 27, 2014
566 F. App'x 556 (9th Cir. 2014)

Summary

using modified categorical approach during de novo review and assuming for purposes of argument that § 69.50.401 is categorically overbroad

Summary of this case from United States v. Gonzalez-Altamirano

Opinion

No. 13-30020 No. 13-30025 D.C. No. 2:08-CR-21-RHW D.C. No. 2:12-CR-21-RHW

03-27-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ULISES COPAS-VILLEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding


Submitted March 7, 2014

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Portland, Oregon

Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, Senior District Judge.

The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Ulises Copas-Villegas appeals his conviction for illegal reentry, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326, as well as the revocation of his supervised release based on the same conduct. He argues that the removal proceeding underlying both the conviction and the revocation did not comport with due process because he was not advised of the possibility of voluntary departure.

Copas-Villegas was ordered removed based on a 2002 conviction for a violation of Washington Revised Code § 69.50.401(a)(1)(i) (2001), which makes it unlawful "for any person to manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance . . . classified in Schedule I or II which is a narcotic drug." Because an alien convicted of an aggravated felony is not eligible for voluntary departure, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(1), Copas-Villegas's due-process challenge depends entirely on whether his 2002 conviction was an for "aggravated felony" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B).

"[A] state drug crime is an aggravated felony if it would be punishable as a felony under the federal drug laws." Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 974 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 52-53 (2006)). Copas-Villegas argues that § 69.50.401(a)(1)(i) proscribes solicitation, while the federal drug laws do not.

"To determine whether a past conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony, courts use either the categorical or modified categorical approach." Murillo-Prado v. Holder, 735 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Assuming arguendo that § 69.50.401(a)(1)(i) is categorically overbroad because it proscribes solicitation, but see In re Hopkins, 976 P.2d 616, 617 (Wash. 1999), we nonetheless conclude that Copas-Villegas's 2002 conviction was for an aggravated felony under the modified categorical approach. In connection with his guilty plea, Copas-Villegas submitted a written allocution describing his guilt "in [his] own words": "On Nov. 1, 2002, in King County, Washington, I did possess with intent to deliver cocaine, knowing it was a controlled substance." Thus, Copas-Villegas admitted to actual possession with intent to deliver, which is unquestionably a crime under the federal drug laws. See Parrilla v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that documents may be considered under the modified categorical approach "if specifically incorporated into the guilty plea or admitted by a defendant").

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Copas-Villegas

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 27, 2014
566 F. App'x 556 (9th Cir. 2014)

using modified categorical approach during de novo review and assuming for purposes of argument that § 69.50.401 is categorically overbroad

Summary of this case from United States v. Gonzalez-Altamirano
Case details for

United States v. Copas-Villegas

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ULISES COPAS-VILLEGAS…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 27, 2014

Citations

566 F. App'x 556 (9th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

United States v. Gonzalez-Altamirano

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, a court more familiar with…

United States v. Burgos-Ortega

Rather, we noted that RCW § 69.50.401(a) does not contain an exception for administering, in contrast to the…