United States v. Alejandro Orozco-Madrigal

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 29 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50120 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00215-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* ALEJANDRO OROZCO-MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Alejandro Orozco-Madrigal appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, 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 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). Orozco-Madrigal contends that his prior conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm under California Penal Code § 245(b) is not a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2014). This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (violation of section 245 “is categorically a crime of violence” under § 2L1.2). Contrary to Orozco-Madrigal’s contention, our decision in Grajeda is not “clearly irreconcilable” with either Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), or Almanza-Arenas v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 469 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 16-50120