22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T500,MEMORANDUM Ulyses Juarez-Aguilar appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. . Juarez-Aguilar contends the district court erred when it applied a 16-level “crime of violence” adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii), based on his prior conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, in violation of California Penal Code § 273.5. Juarez-Aguilar’s contention is foreclosed by United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that a conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5 is categorically a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines because the offense requires the intentional use of physical force against the person of another). As Juarez-Aguilar concedes, his contention that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated is foreclosed. See, e.g., United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 846 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T532,

MEMORANDUM

Ulyses Juarez-Aguilar appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

. Juarez-Aguilar contends the district court erred when it applied a 16-level “crime of violence” adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii), based on his prior conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, in violation of California Penal Code § 273.5. Juarez-Aguilar’s contention is foreclosed by United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that a conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5 is categorically a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines because the offense requires the intentional use of physical force against the person of another).

As Juarez-Aguilar concedes, his contention that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated is foreclosed. See, e.g., United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 846 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

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