NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10295
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00587-HSG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JACKAR LOVE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Jackar Love appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon
in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
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 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).
Love contends that the district court improperly determined that his prior
robbery conviction under California Penal Code § 211 was a “crime of violence”
under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2015) and, therefore, improperly determined his
base offense level. This claim fails. Love necessarily committed either generic
robbery or generic extortion, see United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881,
892 (9th Cir. 2008), both of which are enumerated crimes of violence. See
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1 (2015). Accordingly, his conviction is a categorical
crime of violence. See Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d at 893 & n.10; see also U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1 cmt. n.1 (2015) (defining “crime of violence” as having the meaning given
that term in section 4B1.2 and its Application Note 1). Contrary to Love’s
contention, the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015), had no effect on the Guidelines. See Beckles v. United States, 137 S.
Ct. 886, 895 (2017).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-10295