McCoy

MEMORANDUM **

Stuart Marcus McCoy appeals his 210-month sentence following conviction by jury trial for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a), and we affirm.

McCoy first contends that the district court erred in its determination that his California conviction for grand theft from a person was a crime of violence, thus mandating application of the career offender provision under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. We review de novo a district court’s determination that defendant is a career offender. United States v. Riley, 183 F.3d 1155, 1157 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1174 , 120 S.Ct. 1204 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1107 (2000).

We ruled in United States v. Wofford, 122 F.3d 787, 793-94 (9th Cir.1997), that “violent felony” for the purposes of § 924(e)(2)(B) included a California conviction for grand theft from a person, because the crime by definition presented “a serious potential risk of injury to another.” Id. McCoy contends that the career offender sentencing guideline requires a different analysis, one which focuses on the defendant’s actual charged conduct. We have previously rejected this argument in United States v.…