Court Opinion

ID: 4207955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-09-29 20:01:05.969122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:07.544943
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       SEP 29 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 16-50120

                  Plaintiff-Appellee,            D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00215-BEN

   v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
 ALEJANDRO OROZCO-MADRIGAL,

                  Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                    Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before:       SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

        Alejandro Orozco-Madrigal appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

attempted reentry of a removed alien, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
        **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Orozco-Madrigal contends that his prior conviction for assault with a

semiautomatic firearm under California Penal Code § 245(b) is not a “crime of

violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2014). This argument is

foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2009)

(violation of section 245 “is categorically a crime of violence” under § 2L1.2).

Contrary to Orozco-Madrigal’s contention, our decision in Grajeda is not “clearly

irreconcilable” with either Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), or

Almanza-Arenas v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 469 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). See Miller v.

Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                    16-50120