US v. Avila - In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit considered two procedural challenges the appellant made after his sentencing for illegal reentry. First, he argued that the 8-level sentencing enhancement he received for having a prior conviction for 1st degree burglary in California was incorrect; and second, he argued that the district court’s explanation for his sentence was insufficient. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Avila argued that the California 1st degree burglary should not qualify as an aggravated felony for the 8-level enhancement because it is not a crime of violence under Descamps’ analysis. The Fourth Circuit found that under ACCA, this offense may not qualify as a predicate offense; however, for the enhancement here under a different statutory scheme than ACCA (to wit, 18 U.S.C. § 16), it does qualify as the definition of crime of violence in this context is more general. Further, other courts have come to the conclusion that 1st degree burglary in California is a crime of violence, as it requires entry into an inhabited dwelling, and it presents a substantial risk of force with or without unlawful entry.
With regard to Avila’s second appeal issue, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court sufficiently explained its reasons for his sentence, by considering his history and characteristics, and that the safety of the public was the “driving reason” for the sentence it chose.
(Decided November 4, 2014).