Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantpleadeportationliens

defendantdeportationliens

Related Cases

Perez-Velasquez; U.S. v.

Facts

The defendant, Mexican citizen Rafael Perez-Velasquez, entered the United States illegally in 1991. In October 2000, he was convicted of statutory rape under the law of Tennessee. After being deported, he re-entered the U.S. illegally and was arrested while attempting to cross into Canada. He pleaded guilty to re-entry after deportation, and at sentencing, the district court increased his offense level by 16 levels due to his statutory rape conviction.

The defendant, Mexican citizen Rafael Perez-Velasquez, entered the United States illegally in 1991. In October of 2000, Mr. Perez-Velasquez was convicted of statutory rape under the law of Tennessee. In December of that year an immigration judge ordered him excluded from this country.

Issue

Whether a prior conviction for statutory rape qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under the federal sentencing guideline that governs offense-level enhancements.

The sole question presented is whether a prior conviction for statutory rape qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under the federal sentencing guideline that governs offense-level enhancements.

Rule

U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 mandates a 16-level enhancement for aliens unlawfully in the United States after deportation following a conviction for a 'crime of violence.'

mandates a 16-level enhancement for aliens unlawfully [**3] in the United States after deportation following a conviction for a 'crime of violence.'

Analysis

The court interpreted the guidelines to mean that a crime of violence includes offenses that have force as an element and also encompasses enumerated crimes regardless of whether they include an element of force. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the statutory rape conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence, concluding that sexual penetration of a minor without legally cognizable consent is necessarily 'forcible.'

The most reasonable interpretation of the Commission's language, it seems to us, is that part II both illustrates and expands the class of offenses delineated in part I. Among other things, we believe, part II equates all 'sexual abuse of a minor' with 'forcible sex offenses' and also sweeps in at least one other crime that may not entail the use of force — i.e., burglary of a dwelling.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the defendant's sentence, concluding that his statutory rape conviction was indeed a 'crime of violence' under the guidelines.

AFFIRMED.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the district court's decision to enhance the defendant's sentence based on his prior conviction for statutory rape.

The court held that the most reasonable interpretation was that part II of2L1.2both illustrated and expanded the class of offenses delineated in part I, and that part II equated all 'sexual abuse of a minor' with 'forcible sex offenses.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Thye v. United States

Pornes-Garcia; U.S. v.

Gaspar-Juarez; U.S. v.

Neil Bros. Ltd. v. World Wide Lanes, Inc.

Taveras-Lopez v. Reno