United States of America v. Juan Antonio Gonzalez-Urena

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ-URENA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 16-50237
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02442-JM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Juan Antonio Gonzalez-Urena appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Gonzalez-Urena argues that his prior conviction under California Penal
Code § 215 is not a crime of violence and, therefore, the district court erred in
applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015). This
claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Velasquez-Bosque, 601 F.3d 955, 963
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that § 215 is categorically a “crime of violence” for
purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2).
As Gonzalez-Urena acknowledges, his argument that Descamps v. United
States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), is clearly irreconcilable with Velasquez-Bosque or
with the case on which it relies, United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 893
(9th Cir. 2008), is also foreclosed. See United States v. Chavez-Cuevas, 862 F.3d
729, 739-40 (9th Cir. 2017) (concluding that Descamps “did not impliedly
abrogate Becerril-Lopez”).
We decline Gonzalez-Urena’s invitation to revisit the holdings of Velasquez-
Bosque and Becerril-Lopez because his challenge to those holdings relies on “no
change in the relevant statutes or regulations, nor in any governing authority.”
United States v. Ramos-Medina, 706 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2013). “Absent such
a change, only an en banc panel of our court may overrule or revise the binding
precedent established by a published opinion.” Id. at 938-39.
AFFIRMED.
16-50237 2

-- 2 of 2 --