Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8676864
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Honorato-Rodriguez
No. 8676864 · Decided May 28, 2008
No. 8676864·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
May 28, 2008
Citation
No. 8676864
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM * In this case, we must consider whether Honorato-Rodriguez’s prior Pennsylvania conviction for indecent assault is a crime of violence under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). Yet, we cannot discern from the record whether Honorato-Rodriguez’s prior Pennsylvania conviction was for violating 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 3126(a)(1), or (2), or both. The record only reflects that Honorato-Rodriguez was charged with violating both subsections of the Pennsylvania indecent assault statute, and that he pleaded guilty to “indecent assault.” The Pennsylvania indecent assault statute, however, contains eight subsections, and each subsection criminalizes different conduct. 1 Without knowing whether Honorato-Rodriguez pleaded to (a)(1), (a)(2), or both, we cannot determine whether his prior conviction was a crime of violence. Section 3126(a)(1) criminalizes indecent assault as indecent contact “without the complainant’s consent,” whereas (a)(2) proscribes indecent contact “by forcible compulsion.” If convicted under subsection (a)(1), then Honorato-Rodriguez’s prior conviction would not be a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines using either the categorical or modified categorical approach. 2 Under the categorical approach, the full range of conduct encompassed by subsection (a)(1) is greater than the crime of violence definition in USSG § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). 3 Under the modified categorical approach, the government did not produce judicially noticeable documents demonstrating that Honorato-Rodriguez’s prior conviction was for a crime of violence. 4 If convicted under (a)(2), then Honorato-Rodriguez’s prior conviction would categorically be a crime of violence under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). 5 The *616 documents, however, do not establish that he was convicted under that specific subsection. 6 The sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for resentencing. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3. . See 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 3126(a). . See United States v. Bolanos-Hernandez, 492 F.3d 1140, 1144-46 (9th Cir.2007). . See Kepilino v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir.2006). . See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 , 125 S.Ct. 1254 , 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). . See Bolanos-Hernandez, 492 F.3d at 1145-46 . . See Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602 , 110 S.Ct. 2143 , 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990).
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM * In this case, we must consider whether Honorato-Rodriguez’s prior Pennsylvania conviction for indecent assault is a crime of violence under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii).
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM * In this case, we must consider whether Honorato-Rodriguez’s prior Pennsylvania conviction for indecent assault is a crime of violence under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii).
02Yet, we cannot discern from the record whether Honorato-Rodriguez’s prior Pennsylvania conviction was for violating 18 Pa.
03The record only reflects that Honorato-Rodriguez was charged with violating both subsections of the Pennsylvania indecent assault statute, and that he pleaded guilty to “indecent assault.” The Pennsylvania indecent assault statute, however,
041 Without knowing whether Honorato-Rodriguez pleaded to (a)(1), (a)(2), or both, we cannot determine whether his prior conviction was a crime of violence.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM * In this case, we must consider whether Honorato-Rodriguez’s prior Pennsylvania conviction for indecent assault is a crime of violence under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii).
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Honorato-Rodriguez in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on May 28, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8676864 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.