United States of America v. Deanzer Arlee Clark, a.k.a. Deaner Clark, a.k.a. Deanzer Clark, a.k.a. D.A..

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEANZER ARLEE CLARK, a.k.a.
Deaner Clark, a.k.a. Deanzer Clark, a.k.a.
D.A..
Defendant-Appellant,
No. 16-10073
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00293-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Deanzer Arlee Clark appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 15-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Clark contends that the district court erred by determining that his prior
conviction for making criminal threats, in violation of California Penal Code §
422, was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1)(A)(i). As Clark
acknowledges, this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Villavicencio-
Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir. 2010) (making criminal threats, in violation of
California Penal Code § 422, “is categorically a conviction for a crime of
violence”); see also Arellano Hernandez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir.
2016) (“Villavicencio-Burruel remains the law of this circuit.”).
Clark further contends that the district court erred by basing the challenged
determination on his underlying conduct, rather than the fact of conviction. We
review for plain error, United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108
(9th Cir. 2010), and there was no error. Clark’s contention is belied by the record,
which reflects that the district court discussed Clark’s underlying conduct when
evaluating the application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, as the
court was required to do. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
16-10073 2

-- 2 of 2 --