Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ezequiel Benjamin SOLIS-FLORES, aka Benjamin F. Solis, aka Benjamin Solis-Flores, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-24
Citations: 580 F. App'x 556
Docket Number: No. 13-10356
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ezequiel Benjamin SOLIS-FLORES, aka Benjamin F. Solis, aka Benjamin Solis-Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 580
Pages: 556–556

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ezequiel Benjamin SOLIS-FLORES, aka Benjamin F. Solis, aka Benjamin Solis-Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10356.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2014.
Filed June 24, 2014.
Josh Alan Cummins Ackerman, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
George Herman Soltero, Esquire, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, 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
Ezequiel Benjamin Solis-Flores appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Solis-Flores argues that he was entitled to an additional one-point reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b) for acceptance of responsibility, even though he did not waive his appellate rights. The district court, however, already awarded the additional one-point reduction.
Solis-Flores also contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement for a prior conviction of a felony crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). Although Solis-Flores conceded that the underlying conviction was a felony on its face, he now asserts that the facts supporting the conviction do not satisfy the requirements for the felony portion of the state statute. Wash. Rev.Code § 9A.46.020(2)(b). This amounts to a collateral attack on his prior conviction that may not be maintained at sentencing. United States v. Burrows, 36 F.3d 875, 884-85 (9th Cir.1994). The district court did not err in imposing the 16-level enhancement.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.