United States v. Herbert Vanegas-Ortiz

489 F. App'x 173

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

We have reviewed the record and the opening brief, and conclude that the questions raised in this appeal are foreclosed by Ninth Circuit authority. See United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994 (9th Cir.2009); United States v. Medina-Beltran, 542 F.3d 729 (9th Cir.2008); see also United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Although two other circuits are in disagreement with our circuit’s precedent, see United States v. Divens, 650 F.3d 343 (4th Cir.2011); United States v. Lee, 653 F.3d 170 (2nd Cir.2011), we are nevertheless bound to follow this precedent, unless our court were to convene a rehearing en banc to reconsider this precedent. The parties may file a petition for rehearing en banc so that the full court may consider their arguments that Johnson and Medina-Beltran are wrongly decided.

Accordingly, appellee’s motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment is granted.

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.