United States v. 2020-02-10 | 18-35203 | USA V. DANIEL ORTIZ | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DANIEL JESUS ORTIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-35203

D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01292-HZ
3:11-cr-00273-HZ-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernández, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2020
**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Daniel Jesus Ortiz appeals from the district court’s order
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. 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

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-35203
Ortiz contends that his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3), is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c). Contrary to Ortiz’s assertion, assault with a dangerous weapon
under section 113(a)(3) qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause of
section 924(c)(3)(A) because the offense “necessarily entails at least the threatened
use of violent physical force.” United States v. Gobert, 943 F.3d 878, 882 (9th Cir.
2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the district court properly
denied relief under section 2255.
AFFIRMED.