United States of America v. Eliazar Barraza, a.k.a. Eliazar Molina Barraza, a.k.a. Elizor Molina Barraza, a.k.a.…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ELIAZAR BARRAZA, a.k.a. Eliazar
Molina Barraza, a.k.a. Elizor Molina
Barraza, a.k.a. Eliazar Barraza-Molina, a.k.a.
Eliazar Barraza Molina, a.k.a. Iliazar
Barraza Molina,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50489
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00084-SVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Eliazar Barraza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his
guilty-plea conviction and 72-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in
* 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).
FILED
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-50489
the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Barraza first contends that the district court should have granted his motion
to dismiss the indictment because California Health & Safety Code sections 11351
and 11377(a)—the statutes under which Barraza was convicted in 2008, leading to
his initial removal from the United States—are not divisible. Our recent decisions
in United States v. Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc), and
United States v. Murillo-Alvarado, 876 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2017), foreclose
Barraza’s contention that section 11351 is indivisible. Barraza does not contend
that his removal order was invalid even if section 11351 is divisible, see 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (a)(2)(B)(i); therefore, we need not reach his remaining
contentions regarding the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the
indictment.
Barraza next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Barraza’s recent and extensive criminal history. See United States v. Valencia-
Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2010).
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062
(9th Cir. 2000), we remand to the district court with the instruction that it delete

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-50489
from the judgment the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --