Court Opinion

ID: 6318122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-28 21:01:54.532824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:22.581970
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 28 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 21-50059

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 8:19-cr-00167-DOC-5

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL RIVERA DELGADO, AKA
Player,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Michael Rivera Delgado appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 110-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license and aiding and

abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a), 922(a)(1)(A), and being a felon in

      *
             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).
possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We

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

       Delgado contends that the district court erred by treating his prior state

conviction for making a criminal threat under California Penal Code § 422 as a

crime of violence under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1 and 4B1.2(a). Delgado’s argument is

foreclosed by United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir.

2010). Contrary to Delgado’s assertion, we are bound by Villavicencio-Burruel,

which remains good law. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003)

(en banc) (holding that a three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that

precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority); Arellano

Hernandez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting argument that

Villavicencio-Burruel is no longer valid and stating that the decision “remains the

law of this circuit”).

       AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    21-50059