United States v. Jackar Love , 693 F. App'x 692 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 17 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 16-10295
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00587-HSG
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JACKAR LOVE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 11, 2017**
    Before:      CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    Jackar Love appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
    42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon
    in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
    We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 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).
    Love contends that the district court improperly determined that his prior
    robbery conviction under California Penal Code § 211 was a “crime of violence”
    under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2015) and, therefore, improperly determined his
    base offense level. This claim fails. Love necessarily committed either generic
    robbery or generic extortion, see United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 
    541 F.3d 881
    ,
    892 (9th Cir. 2008), both of which are enumerated crimes of violence. See
    U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1 (2015). Accordingly, his conviction is a categorical
    crime of violence. See 
    Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d at 893
    & n.10; see also U.S.S.G.
    § 2K2.1 cmt. n.1 (2015) (defining “crime of violence” as having the meaning given
    that term in section 4B1.2 and its Application Note 1). Contrary to Love’s
    contention, the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States, 
    135 S. Ct. 2551
    (2015), had no effect on the Guidelines. See Beckles v. United States, 137 S.
    Ct. 886, 895 (2017).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   16-10295
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-10295

Citation Numbers: 693 F. App'x 692

Judges: Canby, Kozinski, Hawkins

Filed Date: 7/17/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024