Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Gustavo ROMERO-ABRAJAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-19
Citations: 376 F. App'x 737
Docket Number: No. 08-10425
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Gustavo ROMERO-ABRAJAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 737–738

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Gustavo ROMERO-ABRAJAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10425.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 19, 2010.
Christine Y. Wong, Assistant U.S., United States Attorney’s Office, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Erik G. Babcock, Law Office of Erik G. Babcock, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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 Gustavo Romero-Abrajan appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed fol lowing 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Romero-Abrajan contends that 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. Romero-Abrajan's argument 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).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.