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:T439,MEMORANDUM Jacobo Zetina-Sandoval appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Zetina-Sandoval contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) because his conviction for making criminal threats, in violation of section 422 of the California Penal Code, is not a categorical crime of violence. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir.2010). Zetina-Sandoval’s argument that we are not bound by Villavicen-cio-Burruel is without merit. See New-dow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir.2010) (a three judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless it is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority). AFFIRMED. This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T466,

MEMORANDUM

Jacobo Zetina-Sandoval appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Zetina-Sandoval contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) because his conviction for making criminal threats, in violation of section 422 of the California Penal Code, is not a categorical crime of violence. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir.2010). Zetina-Sandoval’s argument that we are not bound by Villavicen-cio-Burruel is without merit. See New-dow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir.2010) (a three judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless it is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority).

AFFIRMED.

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