Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel REYES-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-19
Citations: 619 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 14-50450
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel REYES-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 671–671

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel REYES-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50450.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
Filed Oct. 19, 2015.
Faith Aline Devine, Esquire, Peter Ko, Assistants U.S, Office of The U.S Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Doug Keller, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, 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
Daniel Reyes-Zarate appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Reyes-Zarate contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) because his prior conviction under California Penal Code § 211 is not a crime of violence. Reyes-Zarate's argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Flores-Mejia, 687 F.3d 1213, 1216 (9th Cir.2012) (a conviction under California Penal Code § 211 is a categorical crime of violence); see also Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is "clearly irreconcilable" with intervening higher authority).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.