Opinion
21-50059
02-28-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL RIVERA DELGADO, AKA Player, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted February 15, 2022 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 8:19-cr-00167-DOC-5
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Michael Rivera Delgado appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 110-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a), 922(a)(1)(A), and being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Delgado contends that the district court erred by treating his prior state conviction for making a criminal threat under California Penal Code § 422 as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1 and 4B1.2(a). Delgado's argument is foreclosed by United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir. 2010). Contrary to Delgado's assertion, we are bound by Villavicencio-Burruel, which remains good law. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that a three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is "clearly irreconcilable" with intervening higher authority); Arellano Hernandez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting argument that Villavicencio-Burruel is no longer valid and stating that the decision "remains the law of this circuit").
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).