Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Lee GIBSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-23
Citations: 235 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 05-30544
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Lee GIBSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and LEW, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Lee GIBSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-30544.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued July 25, 2006.
Resubmitted Aug. 15, 2007.
Filed Aug. 23, 2007.
Stephen Gunnels, Deschutes County District Attorney, Bend, OR, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Craig E. Weinerman, Esq., FPDOR— Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and LEW, District Judge.
The Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gibson appeals his sentence for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm. Notwithstanding the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and the rule of lenity, Gibson's argument that his two prior drug-related convictions do not constitute "serious drug offenses" under § 924(e)(2)(A) is foreclosed by United States v. Parry, 479 F.3d 722, 723-26 (9th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Murillo, 422 F.3d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1119, 126 S.Ct. 1928, 164 L.Ed.2d 677 (2006). His argument that his conviction for reckless assault under Oregon Revised Statute § 163.165(1) does not constitute a "violent felony" under § 924(e)(2)(B) is foreclosed by United States v. Rendon-Duarte, 490 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir.2007) (as amended).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.