Case ID: f-appx_648/html/0696-01.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. Gerzain Salvador MANZO-SOLANO, a.k.a. Gerzain Manzo-Solano, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10511.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 18, 2016.
    Arturo Andres Aguilar, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Howard Messing, Messing Law Offices, PLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gerzain Salvador Manzo-Solano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Manzo-Solano contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because his prior conviction for second-degree robbery under California Penal Code §§ 211 and 212.5(c) is not a crime of violence. This claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 893 & n. 10 (9th Cir.2008) (a conviction for robbery under California Penal Code § 211 is a categorical crime of violence). Contrary to Manzo-Solano’s assertion, Descamps v. United States, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), which concerns the modified categorical approach, does not allow us to disregard Becerril-Lopez. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority).

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