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:T517,MEMORANDUM Leticia Llaguno Rodriguez appeals from the 42-month sentence imposed following her 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. Rodriguez contends that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level enhancement, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, because her prior conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age, in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 288(a), does not qualify as a crime of violence. She contends that United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 511-16 (9th Cir.2009), holding that a violation of CaLPenal Code § 288(a) is categorically a crime of violence, is inconsistent with Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). This contention lacks merit. See United States v. Farmer, 627 F.3d 416, 421-22 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we decline Rodriguez’s invitation that we seek en banc review of this issue. Rodriguez also contends that Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 , 129 S.Ct. 2294 , 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009), effectively overruled Medinar-Villa. This contention fails. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T549,

MEMORANDUM

Leticia Llaguno Rodriguez appeals from the 42-month sentence imposed following her 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.

Rodriguez contends that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level enhancement, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, because her prior conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age, in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 288(a), does not qualify as a crime of violence. She contends that United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 511-16 (9th Cir.2009), holding that a violation of CaLPenal Code § 288(a) is categorically a crime of violence, is inconsistent with Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). This contention lacks merit. See United States v. Farmer, 627 F.3d 416, 421-22 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we decline Rodriguez’s invitation that we seek en banc review of this issue.

Rodriguez also contends that Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 , 129 S.Ct. 2294 , 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009), effectively overruled Medinar-Villa. This contention fails.

AFFIRMED.

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