Opinion
No. 17-16045
01-26-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MITCHELL PULIDO, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. Nos. 2:16-cv-01345-APG 2:11-cr-00102-APG-CWH-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Federal prisoner Mitchell Pulido appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and 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.
Pulido challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Pulido's contention that Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed. See United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 2020) (reaffirming that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)). Pulido asserts that Dominguez was wrongly decided, but as a three-judge panel, we are bound by the decision. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is "clearly irreconcilable" with intervening higher authority).
AFFIRMED.