United States v. Oscar Camacho-Vasquez
This text of United States v. Oscar Camacho-Vasquez (United States v. Oscar Camacho-Vasquez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 16 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50152
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00388-FMO-1 v.
OSCAR CAMACHO-VASQUEZ, AKA MEMORANDUM* Oscar Goana Camacho, AKA Oscar Camacho Goana, AKA Eriberto Acevedo Reyes,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2018** Pasadena, California
* 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). Before: IKUTA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MCNAMEE,*** District Judge.
Oscar Camacho-Vasquez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
dismiss the indictment charging him with unlawfully reentering the United States
following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The district court did not err in denying Camacho-Vasquez’s motion because
he is unable to demonstrate that “the entry of the [deportation] order was
fundamentally unfair.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3). The relevant immigration laws
authorized Camacho-Vasquez’s deportation because Camacho-Vasquez had been
convicted of an aggravated felony: possession for sale of methamphetamine in
violation of section 11378 of the California Health & Safety Code. United States
v. Verduzco-Rangel, 884 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 2018). We have previously held
that Section 11378 is a divisible statute, see United States v. Ocampo-Estrada, 873
F.3d 661, 668 (9th Cir. 2017), and therefore we may apply the modified categorical
approach and consider the felony complaint, the trial court’s abstract of judgment,
and the trial court’s minute order from Camacho-Vasquez’s state conviction, see
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 (2005). Count 1 of the felony complaint
*** The Honorable Stephen M. McNamee, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 2 charged Camacho-Vasquez with possessing methamphetamine; the minute order
indicates that Camacho-Vasquez was sentenced “1 year 4 months” imprisonment
for “Count(s) 001,” identified as “11378 HS-F C;” and the abstract of judgment
indicates that Camacho-Vasquez was convicted for Count 1, identified as “HS
11378P,” described as “possession of co,” and sentenced to one year, four months’
imprisonment. The link between Count 1 of the felony complaint, and the minute
order and abstract of judgment is “clear and convincing,” Medina-Lara v. Holder,
771 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir. 2014), and the records establish that Camacho-
Vasquez was convicted of possession for sale of methamphetamine, which
“qualifies as an aggravated felony for purposes of federal law,” Verduzco-Rangel,
884 F.3d at 922.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Oscar Camacho-Vasquez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-oscar-camacho-vasquez-ca9-2018.