Case ID: f-appx_489/html/0173-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert Franklin VANEGAS-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10135.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 4, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 7, 2012.
    Erica Leigh Seger, Special Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defen-danb-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, WARDLAW, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

We have reviewed the record and the opening brief, and conclude that the questions raised in this appeal are foreclosed by Ninth Circuit authority. See United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994 (9th Cir.2009); United States v. Medina-Beltran, 542 F.3d 729 (9th Cir.2008); see also United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Although two other circuits are in disagreement with our circuit’s precedent, see United States v. Divens, 650 F.3d 343 (4th Cir.2011); United States v. Lee, 653 F.3d 170 (2nd Cir.2011), we are nevertheless bound to follow this precedent, unless our court were to convene a rehearing en banc to reconsider this precedent. The parties may file a petition for rehearing en banc so that the full court may consider their arguments that Johnson and Medina-Beltran are wrongly decided.

Accordingly, appellee’s motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment is granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.