Narrative Opinion Summary
Jose Limon-Mora appeals a 63-month sentence following his guilty plea for illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. 1326. The appellate court affirms the sentence, rejecting Limon-Mora's argument that his sentence enhancement under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) was erroneous due to his prior "exclusion" rather than "removal" from the U.S. after an aggravated felony conviction. The court finds that his departure, following a felony conviction and an immigration order, constitutes a removal under the statute. The fact that the reinstatement of his removal was executed by an immigration official rather than an immigration judge is deemed irrelevant. The decision cites relevant case law to support its conclusions and notes that this ruling is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of 'Removal' under Immigration Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the nature of Limon-Mora's departure after a felony conviction and an immigration order met the statutory definition of 'removal'.
Reasoning: The court finds that his departure, following a felony conviction and an immigration order, constitutes a removal under the statute.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is not intended for publication and does not establish precedent, except as specified by local circuit rules.
Reasoning: The decision cites relevant case law to support its conclusions and notes that this ruling is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Role of Immigration Official vs. Immigration Judgesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The execution of Limon-Mora's removal by an immigration official, rather than an immigration judge, was considered irrelevant to the validity of the removal process.
Reasoning: The fact that the reinstatement of his removal was executed by an immigration official rather than an immigration judge is deemed irrelevant.
Sentence Enhancement under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the sentence enhancement for illegal re-entry, finding that Limon-Mora's departure after a felony conviction constituted a 'removal' under the statute, regardless of the terminology used.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirms the sentence, rejecting Limon-Mora's argument that his sentence enhancement under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) was erroneous due to his prior 'exclusion' rather than 'removal' from the U.S. after an aggravated felony conviction.