Bautista

MEMORANDUM *

Richard Patrick Bautista (“Bautista”) appeals his sentence after his guilty plea conviction for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the district court’s sentence.

The district court found that Bautista was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because both of Bautista’s previous convictions were crimes of violence. Bautista argues that his sentence should be vacated because his 1996 conviction for Unlawful Use of a Weapon, in violation of Or.Rev.Stat. § 166.220(l)(b), 2 is not a crime of violence. 3 We review this de novo. See United States v. Piccolo, 441 F.3d 1084, 1086 (9th Cir.2006).

Relevant to Bautista’s appeal, a conviction is a crime of violence if it “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). We use a two-step process to determine if a prior conviction satisfies this definition. See United States v. Sandoval-Venegas, 292 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.2002). First, we apply the categorical approach from Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 588-89 , 110 S.Ct. 2143 , 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) to analyze the statutory…