UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4787
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE DANIEL CARDENAS-COVARRUBIAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00294-NCT-1)
Submitted: January 12, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P.
Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United
States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Jose Daniel Cardenas-Covarrubias appeals his
forty-six month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to
unlawful reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326 (2006). Cardenas-Covarrubias’ sole argument on appeal is
that the district court erred in calculating his Guidelines
sentencing range when it increased his offense level by sixteen
levels pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG)
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2009).
Cardenas-Covarrubias correctly concedes that his
argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Diaz-
Ibarra, 522 F.3d 343, 352-53 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that
“[s]exual abuse of a minor” – which is listed as a “crime of
violence” in USSG § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(b)(iii) – need not be a crime
that requires the use, or threatened use, of physical force
against another, but must be a crime that prohibits the
“physical or nonphysical misuse or maltreatment of a minor for a
purpose associated with sexual gratification”). We may not
overrule this court’s binding precedent. United States v.
Simms, 441 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A decision of a panel
of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on
other panels unless it is overruled by a subsequent en banc
opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the
2
Supreme Court.” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3