Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ulyses JUAREZ-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 390 F. App'x 732
Docket Number: No. 09-50375
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ulyses JUAREZ-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 732–732

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ulyses JUAREZ-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50375.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
Matthew John Gardner, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shaffy Moeel, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ulyses Juarez-Aguilar appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
. Juarez-Aguilar contends the district court erred when it applied a 16-level "crime of violence" adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii), based on his prior conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, in violation of California Penal Code § 273.5. Juarez-Aguilar's contention is foreclosed by United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that a conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5 is categorically a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines because the offense requires the intentional use of physical force against the person of another).
As Juarez-Aguilar concedes, his contention that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated is foreclosed. See, e.g., United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 846 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.