NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. CAMILLO ANDRES RUIZ-DIAZ, a.k.a. Brian Steve Chaparro, a.k.a. Colom biano, a.k.a. Jim m y Correa, a.k.a. Cam ilo Andres Ruiz Diaz, a.k.a. Juan Carlos Dom inguez, a.k.a. Daniel Garcia, a.k.a. Jim m y Mejia, a.k.a. Oscar Orlando Mejia, a.k.a. Jim m y Mejia-Lopez, a.k.a. Sergio Cam acho Palacious, Defendant-Appellant. No. 15-50479 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00567-PA
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Subm itted August 16, 2016 * * Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

# FILED
AUG 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

* * The panel unanim ously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum e nt. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Cam illo Andres Ruiz-Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgm ent and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 71-m onth sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ruiz-Diaz’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

m otion to withdraw as counsel of record. We treat Ruiz-Diaz’s application to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 m otion, filed in case num ber 16-72188, as a pro se supplem ental brief. The Clerk shall file a copy of that application in this appeal. No answering brief has been filed. Ruiz-Diaz waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim

that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the right to appeal his sentence, with the exception of the court’s calculation of his crim inal history category. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Ruiz-Diaz’s plea or the crim inal history category calculated by the court. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dism iss the rem a inder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. Contrary to Ruiz-Diaz’s contention, his sentence was not unconstitutionally enhanced under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The 16-level

15-50479 2enhancem e nt to Ruiz-Diaz’s base offense level was triggered by his California

Penal Code section 273.5(a) conviction, which qualifies as a categorical “crim e of violence” because it “has as an elem ent the use, attem pted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), cm t. n.1(B)(iii); United States v. Ayala-Nicanor , 659 F.3d 744, 748 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the enhancem ent was not predicated on a residual clause like the one struck down in Johnson , there is no arguable issue as to whether Ruiz-Diaz’s sentence is illegal. We, therefore, enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009). Counsel’s m otion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

15-50479 3