N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ELISHA W ILLIAM POLLOC K, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 11-10667

D. C . No. 4:10-c r-01786-C KJDTF-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na C indy K. Jorge nson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Submitte d M ay

14, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s , a n d M ARB LEY, Distric t Judge
. ** De fe nda nt a ppe a l s the se nte nc e im

pose d by the distric t c ourt for his
c onvic tion for m aking a

fa lse sta te m e nt during the purc ha se of a fire arm . 18 U.S.C . § 924(a)(1)(A). The distric t c ourt a pplie d a six-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt to 

# FIL ED SEP 17 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent ex cept as provided by

9th Cir. R. 36-3.

* * The Honorable Alg enon L . Marbley , United States District J udg e for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by desig n ation.De fe nda

nt’ s ba se offe n se le ve l for De fe nda nt’ s pre vious c onvic tion for a fe lony
c rim e of viole nc e . De fe nda nt a rgue s thedistric t c ourt e rre d in a pply ing the
e nha nc e m e nt be c a

use the offe nse for whic h he wa s pre viously c onvic te d, se c ondde gre e burgla

ry unde r Ariz o n a

la w, is not a

“ c rim e of viole n c e ” unde r the re sidua l
c la use of U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(a )(2). W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of theSe nte nc ing Guide line s. Unite d State s v . Lope z-Patino , 391 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th C ir. 2004) (pe r c uriam ). De fe nda nt’ s a rgum e nt is sty

m ie d by this c ourt’ s de c isions in Unite d State s v . Park , 649 F.3d 1175 (9th C ir. 2011), a nd Unite d State

s v . Te rre ll , 593 F.3d 1084 (9th C ir. 2010). In Te rre ll , we he ld tha t se c ond-de gre e burgla

ry unde r Ariz ona

la w is c ate g oric a lly

a “ viole nt fe lony ” unde r the Arm e d C are e r C rim ina l Ac t of 1984 (the “ AC C A” ), 18 U.S.C . § 924(e ). 593 F.3d a t 1093. Furtherm ore , this C ourt ha s inte rpre te d the te rm

“ c rim e of viole nc e ” unde r the re sidua l c la use of U.S.S.G. § 4B 1 .2(a )(2) in a

m anne r c onsistent with our inte rpre t ation of “viole nt fe lony ” unde r the AC C A. Se e Park , 649 F.3d a

t 1177. Ac c ordingly , we AFFIRM the
se nte nc e im

pose d on De fe nda

nt by the distric t

c ourt. De fe nda nt a lso c onte n d s there sidua l c la use of U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(a )(2) is
unc onstitutiona

lly va gue . This C ourt re c e ntly c o nside re d a

nd re je c t e d this
argum e nt in U

nite d State

s v . Spe nc e r , No. 12-10078, 2013 W L 3870731 (9th C ir. 2July

29, 2013), where we found this a tta c k to be fore c lose d by

Supre m e C ourt a

nd Ninth C irc uit pre c e de nt. Id. at *10 (c iting S yk e s v . Unite d

State s , 131 S. C t . 2267, 2277 (2011); J

a me s v . Unite d State

s , 550 U.S. 192, 210 n. 6 (2007); a nd U nite d State s v . C re w s , 621 F.3d 849, 852 n. 4, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2010)). Thus, the re is no ba sis for re ve rsa l on this ground. AFFIRM E D.

3