Sandoval-Venegas

MEMORANDUM *

Heriberto Sandoval-Venegas appeals his sentence and asserts that he is not a career offender 1 because a crime used in reaching the opposite conclusion was not a crime of violence. 2 We affirm.

Sandoval makes Daedalian arguments about whether burglary of a residence in California is true generic burglary. 3 He suggests that he could have been a person who became an aider and abettor of a burglary after the principal had already unlawfully entered the residence with intent to commit a crime. 4 He also asserts that one could conceivably commit a burglary in California without an unlawful or unprivileged entry. 5 We need not resolve *922 those questions because, as we see it, when Sandoval pled guilty to the unlawful entry of an inhabited dwelling house with the intent to commit larceny or a felony, he necessarily pled guilty to a crime “that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” See USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2); United States v. Williams, 47 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Becker, 919 F.2d 568, 573 (9th Cir.1990). Therefore, Sandoval was convicted of a crime of violence.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication…