Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo Rosales MARCIAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-31
Citations: 691 F. App'x 848
Docket Number: No. 16-50011
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo Rosales MARCIAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 848–849

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo Rosales MARCIAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50011
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2017
Filed May 31, 2017
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Lawrence Elliot Kole, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana,. CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 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
Gerardo Rosales Marcial appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Marcial contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level enhancement to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) because his pri- or conviction for making a criminal threat, in violation of California Penal Code § 422, is not a "crime of violence." As Marcial acknowledges, this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir. 2010). We remain bound by Villavicencio-Burruel. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.