United States of America v. ANTONIO ROYAL, AKA Tone Royal, AKA Antonio Royale

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO ROYAL, AKA Tone Royal,
AKA Antonio Royale,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-15130
17-15131
D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00118-CW-1
D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00405-CW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Antonio Royal appeals from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d
562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), 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).
FILED
MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-15130 & 17-15131
Royal contends that, in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v.
United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), his conviction for assault with a firearm, in
violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(2) (2005), is not a crime of violence.
In Appeal No. 17-15130, he argues that, therefore, he is not a “violent felon” for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 931(a)(1) and that the district court improperly determined
his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). In Appeal No. 17-15131, he
argues that the district court erred in its calculation of the Guidelines range. All of
Royal’s arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d
1060, 1065-68 (9th Cir. 2018), which held that a conviction under section 245(a) is
a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). See Vasquez-Gonzalez,
901 F.3d at 1068; see also United States v. Werle, 877 F.3d 879, 883-84 (9th Cir.
2017) (stating that the language of section 16(a) “largely mirrors” the language of
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1)).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach the parties’ remaining
arguments.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --