U.S. v. Alvarado-Rodriguez, 269 Fed.Appx. 427

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Montiel-Cortes

    849 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2017)   Cited 14 times
    Finding Nevada's robbery statute categorically a crime of violence

    Nevertheless, our decisions addressing other state robbery statutes shows that this court has rejected arguments similar to the Government's and generally requires that danger to the victim be "immediate" to constitute a generic robbery.For example, in United States v. Alvarado–Rodriguez , 269 Fed.Appx. 427 (5th Cir. 2008), this court held that a California robbery statute, Cal. Penal Code § 211, fell within the generic definition of robbery where it defined robbery as "the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear." The "fear" mentioned in the statute was defined as either (1) "fear of an unlawful injury to the person or property of the person robbed, or of any relative of his or member of his family" or (2) "fear of an immediate and unlawful injury to the person or property of anyone in the company of the person robbed at the time of the robbery.

  2. United States v. Ortiz-Gonzalez

    32 F. Supp. 3d 785 (S.D. Tex. 2013)

    The Circuit reasoned that the criminal act's inherent danger was sufficient to create circumstances of immediate injury, even though in California the victim's fear may be only related to threats against property. United States v. Alvarado–Rodriguez, 269 Fed.Appx. 427, 429 (5th Cir.2008) (“Regardless of how the robbery occurs, that danger is inherent in the criminal act. Thus, even when the statute is violated by placing the victim in fear of injury to property, the property has been misappropriated in circumstances involving immediate danger to the person.”) (internal quotations and alternations omitted); United States v. Castillo–Zuniga, 270 Fed.Appx. 342, 343 (5th Cir.2008) (using identical reasoning); United States v. Gaytan–Valle, 265 Fed.Appx. 427, 428 (5th Cir.2008) (using identical reasoning).