Court Opinion

ID: 2650906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-01-25 01:02:29.589355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:29.558108
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JAN 24 2014

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-50373

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:12-cr-01421-LAB

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
FRANCISCO JIMENEZ-ARZATE,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                     Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted January 21, 2014**

Before:        CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Francisco Jimenez-Arzate appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 34-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

          *
             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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Jimenez-Arzate contends that the district court erred by applying a 12-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because assault with a deadly

weapon under section 245(a) of the California Penal Code is not a categorical

crime of violence in light of recent California case law that does not require the

intentional use of force for a conviction under section 245(a). This contention is

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

Jimenez-Arzate’s argument that we are not bound by Grajeda 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); see also Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir.

2010) (concluding that Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010), which

concerned a statute “akin to California’s simple battery statute,” did not undermine

this court’s prior conclusion that a conviction for willful infliction of corporal

injury upon a spouse or cohabitant was a categorical crime of violence).

      Jimenez-Arzate also contends that the district court erred in imposing a

three-year term of supervised release in light of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) and Jimenez-

Arzate’s individual circumstances. The district court did not err. The record

reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

                                           2                                     12-50373
factors, including the need for deterrence. Moreover, the three-year term of

supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the

circumstances, including Jimenez-Arzate’s criminal history and prior deportations.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt.

n.5.

       AFFIRMED.

                                           3                                     12-50373