gno.law

United States v. Daniel Reyes-Zarate

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50450 · 2015-10-19 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel REYES-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Barry G. Silverman (author), Jay S. Bybee, Paul J. Watford

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 19 2015

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50450 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-04121-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* DANIEL REYES-ZARATE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Reyes-Zarate appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, 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). Reyes-Zarate contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because his prior conviction under California Penal Code § 211 is not a crime of violence. Reyes-Zarate’s argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Flores-Mejia, 687 F.3d 1213, 1216 (9th Cir. 2012) (a conviction under California Penal Code § 211 is a categorical crime of violence); see also 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 14-50450

Cites, in this corpus