United States v. Lajai Pridgette

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30274

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00281-EJL-1

v. MEMORANDUM* LAJAI JAMAR PRIDGETTE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

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);

* 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). 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 (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.

AFFIRMED.

2 16-30274