UNITED STATES v. PRIDGETTE (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Lajai Jamar Pridgette appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month concurrent sentences imposed on remand following his jury-trial conviction for possession of a counterfeit access device and counterfeit access device making equipment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3), (4); possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pridgette first contends that the district court erred in determining that his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is a categorical crime of violence under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and 4B1.2(a). Pridgette’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1060, 1065-68 (9th Cir. 2018), which was decided after briefing in this case was complete. In Vasquez-Gonzalez, this court held that section 245(a)(1) is a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), which is materially identical to § 4B1.2(a)(1). See id. at 1068; see also United States v. Werle, 877 F.3d 879, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating that the language of § 16(a) “largely mirrors” the language of § 4B1.2(a)(1)).

Pridgette also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the circumstances of the offense and Pridgette’s lengthy criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.