Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus GARCIA-FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-17
Citations: 414 F. App'x 957
Docket Number: No. 10-10194
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus GARCIA-FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 957–957

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus GARCIA-FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10194.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 17, 2011.
Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Liza M. Granoff, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of The U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. 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
Jesus Garcia-Fernandez appeals from the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Garcia-Fernandez contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level "crime of violence" enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(a)(ii), based on his prior robbery conviction, in violation of California Penal Code § § 211 and 212.5(c). The district court did not err. See United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 890-93 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that a conviction under California Penal Code § 211 is categorically a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines). Moreover, even if the district court had erred, Garcia-Fernandez has not demonstrated that his substantial rights may have been affected. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 552 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.