Court Opinion

ID: 2669679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-11 20:36:30.908333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:08.030713
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 11 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10373

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00398-CKJ

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JACOBO ZETINA-SANDOVAL,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted April 7, 2014**

Before:      TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

       Jacobo Zetina-Sandoval appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 24-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.

       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
       **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Zetina-Sandoval contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because his conviction for

making criminal threats, in violation of section 422 of the California Penal Code, is

not a categorical crime of violence. This contention is foreclosed by United States

v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir. 2010). Zetina-Sandoval’s

argument that we are not bound by Villavicencio-Burruel is without merit. See

Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2010) (a three-judge panel is

bound by circuit precedent unless it is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening

higher authority).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    13-10373