United States v. Carlos Gorosave

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50513
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-04429-DMS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CARLOS AGUSTIN GOROSAVE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Augustin Gorosave appeals from the 151-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a). 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 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).
Gorosave contends that the district court erred in determining that his 1996
conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245(a) of the
California Penal Code constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197
(9th Cir. 2009). Gorosave’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).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50513