United States v. Edgar Barajas-Espinoza

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             FILED
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                              MAR 16 2015

                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                             U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10667

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01232-RCC-JR-1

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
EDGAR NEMECIO BARAJAS-
ESPINOZA, AKA Edgar Barajas, AKA
Edgar Nemecio Barajas-Espinoza,

              Defendant - Appellant.


                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Arizona
                 Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 12, 2015**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

       The district court correctly held that Edgar Nemecio Barajas-Espinoza’s

prior conviction for rape of a child in the second degree, Wash. Rev. Code


        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
        **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
                                                                          Page 2 of 2
§ 9A.44.076(1), qualifies as a “crime of violence” under United States Sentencing

Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). In United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d

1103 (9th Cir. 2010), we held that “a conviction under section 9A.44.076(1)

categorically constitutes sexual abuse of a minor under the first generic definition”

of that offense and therefore qualifies as a “crime of violence.” Id. at 1107.

Barajas-Espinoza points to no subsequent precedent that undermines Valencia-

Barragan, which controls here. As a result, the district court did not err by

applying the 16-level enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).

      AFFIRMED.