MEMORANDUM

Santos Valdovino-Torrez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Valdovino-Torrez contends that the district court erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2014), based on his prior conviction for attempted infliction of corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant, in violation of California Penal Code § 273.5. This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 820 (9th Cir. 2010) (conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 273.5 is a categorical crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2); see also United States v. Saavedra-Velazquez, 578 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 2009) (definition of “attempt” under California law is coextensive with federal definition of “attempt” for purposes of Guideline governing 16-level enhancement based on prior crime of violence felony conviction). Contrary to Valdovino-Torrez’s contention, the 16-level enhancement was not predicated on a residual clause like that struck down in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551 , 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015).

Valdovino-Torrez next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Valdovino-Torrez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Valdovino-Torrez’s extensive criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586 .

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.