UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 19 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50414, 17-50415 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02358-MMA-1 v. 3:12-cr-03690-MMA-1 Southern District of California, EDUARDO DUFFY, San Diego Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AMENDING MEMORANDUM AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Before: D.W. NELSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,* District Judge. The unpublished memorandum disposition filed on February 14, 2019 and available at United States v. Duffy, 752 F. App’x 532 (9th Cir. 2019) is amended. The superseding amended memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order. With the memorandum disposition so amended, the panel has voted to deny appellant’s petition for panel rehearing. Judge Callahan voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judges Nelson and Korman so recommended. * The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing by the panel or en banc will be entertained. 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50414 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02358-MMA-1 v. EDUARDO DUFFY, AMENDED MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50415 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-03690-MMA-1 v. EDUARDO DUFFY, AKA Eduardo Duffy- Carrasco, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 12, 2019** * 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). Pasadena, California Before: D.W. NELSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District Judge. Eduardo Duffy, a citizen of Mexico, appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and the revocation of his supervised release based on the illegal reentry conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. I Duffy argues that his underlying removal order based on his California Penal Code (CPC) § 211 conviction was invalid because CPC § 211 is not an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). This argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Martinez-Hernandez, 912 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2019), which held that CPC § 211 is an aggravated felony because it qualifies as a categorical generic theft offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). II Duffy argues that his illegal reentry conviction was invalid because, following Morales-Santana, he was “convicted under a law classifying on an impermissible ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals