United States of America v. Santos Valdovino-Torrez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SANTOS VALDOVINO-TORREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50047
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01986-W
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Santos Valdovino-Torrez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
attempted reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
FILED
JAN 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Valdovino-Torrez contends that the district court erred in imposing a 16-
level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2014), based on his prior
conviction for attempted infliction of corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant, in
violation of California Penal Code § 273.5. This argument is foreclosed. See
United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 820 (9th Cir. 2010) (conviction
under Cal. Penal Code § 273.5 is a categorical crime of violence under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2); see also United States v. Saavedra-Velazquez, 578 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th
Cir. 2009) (definition of “attempt” under California law is coextensive with federal
definition of “attempt” for purposes of Guideline governing 16-level enhancement
based on prior crime of violence felony conviction). Contrary to Valdovino-
Torrez’s contention, the 16-level enhancement was not predicated on a residual
clause like that struck down in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
Valdovino-Torrez next contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Valdovino-Torrez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
and the totality of the circumstances, including Valdovino-Torrez’s extensive
criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
16-50047 2

-- 2 of 2 --