United States of America v. Lazaro Bahena-Aranda

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAZARO BAHENA-ARANDA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10181
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-02936-CKJ-JJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Lazaro Bahena-Aranda appeals from the 50-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bahena-Aranda contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level
FILED
APR 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10181 2
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), because assault with a deadly
weapon under section 245(a) of the California Penal Code is not a categorical
crime of violence. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Grajeda, 581
F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2009). Bahena-Aranda’s argument that we are not
bound by Grajeda in light of the subsequent case of Johnson v. United States, 130
S. Ct. 1265 (2010), is without merit. See Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 644
(9th Cir. 2010) (a three-judge panel may ignore circuit precedent only where it is
“clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority); Banuelos-Ayon v.
Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that Johnson, which
concerned a statute “akin to California's simple battery statute,” did not undermine
the court’s prior conclusion that a conviction for willful infliction of corporal
injury upon a spouse or cohabitant was a categorical crime of violence).
Bahena-Aranda’s contention that the district court erred by failing to
examine judicially noticeable documents fails because his prior conviction is a
categorical crime of violence. See Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602
(1990). Bahena-Aranda does not contest the fact of his prior conviction, nor did
the district court err in relying on the uncontested pre-sentence report to establish
the fact of that conviction. See United States v. Romero-Rendon, 220 F.3d 1159,
1163 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --