Summary
rejecting appeal based upon conclusion that Nevada robbery conviction qualifies as a crime of violence as held in U.S. v. Harris, 572 F.3d 1065, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009)
Summary of this case from United States v. HermanOpinion
No. 15-10342
10-03-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANK CORDOVA-GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Frank Cordova, a.k.a. Frank Efraim Cordova, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 4:14-cr-01696-RM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Frank Cordova-Gonzalez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cordova-Gonzalez argues that the district court erred in imposing a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for his 2006 Nevada state court conviction for robbery pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.380. We review de novo the district court's determination that a defendant's prior state court conviction qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 889 (9th Cir. 2008). Contrary to his contention, Cordova-Gonzalez's argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Harris, 572 F.3d 1065, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) ("[A] conviction under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.380 categorically qualifies as a crime of violence.").
Furthermore, we note that the district court concluded that the 16-level enhancement required under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) overstated Cordova-Gonzalez's criminal history, and accordingly varied downward from a guidelines range of 41-51 months to impose an 18-month sentence.
AFFIRMED.