MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant Carlos Cedano-Perez appeals his below-guidelines 46-month sentence following a conditional guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Cedano-Perez contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level increase for a prior crime of violence, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii), based upon Cedano-Perez’s 2000 Nevada conviction for battery with substantial bodily harm. Cedano-Perez contends that he is actually innocent of the Nevada offense, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Absent denial of right to counsel, Cedano-Perez misunderstands the power of our court to review his Nevada conviction. See Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 376 , 121 S.Ct. 1578, 1580 , 149 L.Ed.2d 590 (2001) (prohibiting collateral attack of prior state conviction in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding); Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 , 114 S.Ct. 1732 , 128 L.Ed.2d 517 (1994) (prohibiting collateral attack of prior state conviction at federal sentencing proceeding). As Cedano-Perez had counsel during his state court criminal proceedings, the district court appropriately concluded that Cedano-Perez could not collaterally attack his Nevada conviction at his federal sentencing. See United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 295 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Gutierrez-Cervantez, 132 F.3d 460, 462 (9th Cir.1997).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . We do not consider here whether Cedano-Perez could challenge his state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as a "rare case[]” in which there was previously no available channel of review due to "no fault of his own.” See Daniels, 532 U.S. at 376 , 121 S.Ct. 1578 .