Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-20
Citations: 519 F. App'x 448
Docket Number: No. 12-10364
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 448–448

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10364.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 20, 2013.
Jesse Joseph Figueroa, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas Tyler Francis, Esquire, Ellin-wood Francis & Plowman, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Victor Manuel Hernandez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hernandez contends that the district court erred when it used his prior conviction both as a basis for a 16-level enhancement and in calculating his criminal history category. As Hernandez concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1050 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
Hernandez also contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(a)(ii), because it wrongly characterized his prior robbery conviction under California Penal Code § 211 as a "crime of violence." The district court did not err. See United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 893 & n. 10 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that a conviction under § 211 is categorically a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.