Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnulfo MURILLO-CUELLAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-22
Citations: 396 F. App'x 405
Docket Number: No. 10-50023
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnulfo MURILLO-CUELLAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnulfo MURILLO-CUELLAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50023.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 22, 2010.
Thomas Blanchard Snyder, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Doug Keller, Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, 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
Arnulfo Murillo-Cuellar appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Murillo-Cuellar 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. Murillo-Cuellar's eon-tention 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 Murillo-Cuellar 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.