Narrative Opinion Summary
Rene Luna-Maradiaga appeals his 82-month sentence for unlawful reentry as a deported, removed, or excluded alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that he should not face a sentencing enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) because this statute is applicable only to aliens who have been removed, not those who have been excluded, as in his case. The court finds this argument unpersuasive, clarifying that there is no significant legal distinction among “deportation,” “exclusion,” and “removal” regarding the offenses defined in § 1326(a) and the corresponding enhancements under § 1326(b), citing precedents from the Ninth Circuit. The conviction and sentence are affirmed. The memorandum is not designated for publication and cannot be cited in future cases within the circuit except as allowed under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) Enhancementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applies the enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) to individuals who have been deported, removed, or excluded, rejecting the argument that the statute applies only to those who have been removed.
Reasoning: He argues that he should not face a sentencing enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) because this statute is applicable only to aliens who have been removed, not those who have been excluded, as in his case.
No Distinction Among Deportation, Exclusion, and Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court holds that there is no significant legal distinction among the terms 'deportation,' 'exclusion,' and 'removal' for the purposes of offenses and enhancements under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Reasoning: The court finds this argument unpersuasive, clarifying that there is no significant legal distinction among “deportation,” “exclusion,” and “removal” regarding the offenses defined in § 1326(a) and the corresponding enhancements under § 1326(b), citing precedents from the Ninth Circuit.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Memorandasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The memorandum in this case is not designated for publication and cannot be cited in future cases within the circuit, except as permitted under specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The memorandum is not designated for publication and cannot be cited in future cases within the circuit except as allowed under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.