United States v. Michael Delgado

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 28 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50059

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 8:19-cr-00167-DOC-5

v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL RIVERA DELGADO, AKA Player,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Michael Rivera Delgado appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 110-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license and aiding and

abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a), 922(a)(1)(A), and being a felon in

* 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 firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Delgado contends that the district court erred by treating his prior state

conviction for making a criminal threat under California Penal Code § 422 as a

crime of violence under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1 and 4B1.2(a). Delgado’s argument is

foreclosed by United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir.

2010). Contrary to Delgado’s assertion, we are bound by Villavicencio-Burruel,

which remains good law. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003)

(en banc) (holding that a three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that

precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority); Arellano

Hernandez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting argument that

Villavicencio-Burruel is no longer valid and stating that the decision “remains the

law of this circuit”).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-50059