United States v. Jimenez-Arzate

United States v. Grajeda remains good law, and Ceron v. Holder does not abrogate United States v. Grajeda.

Francisco Jimenez-Arzate was sentenced to 34 months incarceration and three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to illegally reentering the country, following his deportation. Jimenez-Arzate appealed his sentence, arguing that United States v. Grajeda is no longer good law due to the decisions in People v. Aznavoleh and People v. Wyatt. Jimenez-Arzate also claims Grajeda is abrogated by Ceron v. Holder. The Ninth Circuit found that Jimenez-Arzate’s reasons why Grajeda is no longer good law are ill founded. Second, the panel found Jimenez-Arzate’s argument that Ceron abrogates Grajada is also incorrect, because Ceron examines whether a conviction under the California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is categorically a crime of moral turpitude; whereas Grajeda examines whether a conviction under the same California statute is categorically a crime of violence. Finally, the panel found Jimenez-Arzate’s supervised release, ordered by the district court, was not an abuse of discretion because it was necessary and justified. AFFIRMED.