United States v. Cates

231 F. App'x 639

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 7, 2007
• Docket: No. 06-30285
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

Michael Jay Cates appeals his 180-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Cates acknowledges that his 1995 conviction for the possession of a short-barreled shotgun and his 2003 conviction for first-degree burglary constitute predicate offenses under the ACCA. We conclude that Cates’ 1979 conviction for first-degree burglary constitutes a violent felony under the modified categorical approach, thereby qualiiying as a predicate offense under the ACCA. See United States v. Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d 839, 851-52 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that an “Information containing] all of the elements of generic burglary” coupled with an Abstract of Judgment “reflecting] that [defendant] pleaded guilty ... to the Information ... furnishe[d] sufficient proof ...”). Cates’ 1993 and 1996 drug convictions also qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA because they are both punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of ten years under Oregon statutes. See United States v. Parry, 479 F.3d 722, 724 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, the district court did not err in enhancing Cates’ sentence under the ACCA. See United States v. Rodriquez, 464 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir.2006) (“[A] person who violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and has three prior convictions for a ‘violent felony’ or a ‘serious drug offense’ is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years.”) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1)).¹

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1 . Because these three predicate offenses support the ACCA enhancement, we need not determine whether Cates’ other convictions were for predicate offenses.