Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0967-01.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. Gustavo Davalos TRUEBA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10105
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 11, 2017
    Rosaleen O’Gara, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU — Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Gustavo Davalos Trueba, Pro Se
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gustavo Davalos Trueba appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 38-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Davalos Trueba contends that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence on the basis that his prior conviction of willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant under California Penal Code § 273.5 was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G.§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2014). This claim is foreclosed by United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir. 2010). Contrary to Davalos Treuba’s claim, Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) is not “clearly irreconcilable” with this precedent. 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).

Davalos Trueba also contends that the district court erred in applying the enhancement because his conviction under section 273.5 does not qualify as a felony. This claim is without merit. A violation of section 273.5 is punishable by up to four years of imprisonment. See Cal. Penal Code § 273.5(a). It thus-meets the definition of “felony.” See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.2 (2014) (“ ‘[Fjelony’ means any federal, state, or local offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”),

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.