United States of America v. Jaime Rene Lopez-Vaal

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAIME RENE LOPEZ-VAAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-50037
D.C. No.
3:16-cr-00995-GPC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 30, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, BYBEE, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Rene Lopez-Vaal appeals the district court’s sentence of 40 months’
imprisonment and three years’ supervised release following his guilty plea for
FILED
SEP 04 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

being a removed alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)
and (b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Lopez-Vaal admitted the facts establishing the elements necessary for
conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) in his plea agreement and Rule 11
colloquy, namely that he was an alien who had been “lawfully excluded, deported
and removed from the United States to Mexico on April 16, 2007,” and that prior
to this 2007 removal, he had been convicted of a felony for trafficking cocaine in
violation of section 69.50.401(A)(1) of the Revised Code of Washington.1
Because Lopez-Vaal’s conviction under §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1) was proper, the 40-
month sentence imposed by the district court, which was below the ten-year
statutory maximum established in § 1326(b)(1), was lawful. The district court did
not directly or implicitly hold that Lopez-Vaal had been convicted of a violation of
§ 1326(b)(2) or that it was imposing a sentencing enhancement under that section.
Therefore, we reject Lopez-Vaal’s arguments that the district court erred by
imposing a sentence under § 1326(b)(2).
AFFIRMED.
1 Lopez-Vaal waived the argument that the Washington offense does not
categorically qualify as a felony for purposes of § 1326(b)(1) because he did not
raise it in his opening brief. See United States v. Anderson, 472 F.3d 662, 668 (9th
Cir. 2006). Further, Lopez-Vaal failed to develop this argument or cite any
relevant precedent to support this claim. Therefore, we do not address it here.
2

-- 2 of 2 --