United States of America v. Robert Arthur Bates

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT ARTHUR BATES,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-16171
D.C. Nos. 2:17-cv-00534-JAD
2:99-cr-00008-JAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Robert Arthur Bates 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
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16171
In his section 2255 motion, Bates argued that, in light of Johnson v. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), his conviction for carjacking in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2119, is no longer a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
In United States v. Gutierrez, this Court held that the federal offense of carjacking
is “categorically a crime of violence under § 924(c)” because it “necessarily entails
the threatened use of violent physical force.” 876 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2017),
cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1602 (2018). As Bates concedes in his reply brief, this
decision forecloses his argument.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --