United States of America v. Gaston Ortiz-Ortiz

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GASTON ORTIZ-ORTIZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50299
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-03263-L-1
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submission Deferred March 2, 2010
Resubmitted April 2, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: CANBY, GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Gaston Ortiz-Ortiz (“Ortiz”) appeals his seventy-seven
month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to one count of reentering the United
States without permission in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Because we vacate Ortiz’s sentence on the basis of a Guidelines calculation2
error, we do not reach Ortiz’s other allegations of sentencing error.
2
under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. There is no challenge to the conviction but there is a
challenge to Ortiz’s sentence.
We review the district court’s interpretation of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (“Guidelines”) de novo. United States v. Lambert, 498 F.3d 963, 966
(9th Cir. 2007). Incorrect calculation of the applicable Guidelines range is
reversible error. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.) (en banc),
cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2491 (2008).
The district court erred by concluding that Ortiz’s convictions under
California Penal Code sections 288(c)(1) and 12021(a)(1) are categorical “crimes
of violence” meriting a sixteen-level upward adjustment under Guidelines section
2L1.2(b)(1)(A). See United States v. Eduardo Castro, No. 09-50164, slip op. at
4912 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2010); United States v. Garcia-Cruz, 978 F.2d 537, 542–43
(9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Sahakian, 965 F.2d 740, 742 (9th Cir. 1992). The
district court did not reach the modified categorical approach for either conviction,
and no other conviction in the record before us supports a sixteen-level
enhancement. We vacate Ortiz’s sentence and remand for resentencing on an open
record. United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 851–52 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --