Court Opinion

ID: 4173280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-05-31 20:03:52.474059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:08.030988
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 31 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 16-50011

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 8:15-cr-00072-CJC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
GERARDO ROSALES MARCIAL,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before:      THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.

      Gerardo Rosales Marcial appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

being an illegal alien found in the United States following 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 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).
      Marcial contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level

enhancement to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015)

because his prior conviction for making a criminal threat, in violation of California

Penal Code § 422, is not a “crime of violence.” As Marcial acknowledges, this

argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556,

563 (9th Cir. 2010). We remain bound by Villavicencio-Burruel. See 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.

                                          2                                   16-50011