UNITED STATES v. ROYAL (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Antonio Royal appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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.

Royal contends that, in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), his conviction for assault with a firearm, in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(2) (2005), is not a crime of violence. In Appeal No. 17-15130, he argues that, therefore, he is not a “violent felon” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 931(a)(1) and that the district court improperly determined his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). In Appeal No. 17-15131, he argues that the district court erred in its calculation of the Guidelines range. All of Royal’s arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1060, 1065-68 (9th Cir. 2018), which held that a conviction under section 245(a) is a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). See Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d at 1068; see also United States v. Werle, 877 F.3d 879, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating that the language of section 16(a) “largely mirrors” the language of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1)).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.

AFFIRMED.