Court Opinion

ID: 4238287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-01-22 22:00:27.166034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:03.325852
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JAN 22 2018

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 16-50237

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02442-JM

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ-URENA,

               Defendant - Appellant.

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

                            Submitted January 16, 2018**

Before:        REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

       Juan Antonio Gonzalez-Urena appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 37-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 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).
      Gonzalez-Urena argues that his prior conviction under California Penal

Code § 215 is not a crime of violence and, therefore, the district court erred in

applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015). This

claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Velasquez-Bosque, 601 F.3d 955, 963

(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that § 215 is categorically a “crime of violence” for

purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2).

      As Gonzalez-Urena acknowledges, his argument that Descamps v. United

States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), is clearly irreconcilable with Velasquez-Bosque or

with the case on which it relies, United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 893

(9th Cir. 2008), is also foreclosed. See United States v. Chavez-Cuevas, 862 F.3d

729, 739-40 (9th Cir. 2017) (concluding that Descamps “did not impliedly

abrogate Becerril-Lopez”).

      We decline Gonzalez-Urena’s invitation to revisit the holdings of Velasquez-

Bosque and Becerril-Lopez because his challenge to those holdings relies on “no

change in the relevant statutes or regulations, nor in any governing authority.”

United States v. Ramos-Medina, 706 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2013). “Absent such

a change, only an en banc panel of our court may overrule or revise the binding

precedent established by a published opinion.” Id. at 938-39.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     16-50237