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:T4b3,MEMORANDUM Victor Manuel Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-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. Hernandez contends that the district court erred when it used his prior conviction both as a basis for a 16-level enhancement and in calculating his criminal history category. As Hernandez concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1050 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Hernandez also contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(a)(ii), because it wrongly characterized his prior robbery conviction under California Penal Code § 211 as a “crime of violence.” The district court did not err. See United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 , 893 & n. 10 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that a conviction under § 211 is categorically a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4e5,

MEMORANDUM

Victor Manuel Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-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.

Hernandez contends that the district court erred when it used his prior conviction both as a basis for a 16-level enhancement and in calculating his criminal history category. As Hernandez concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1050 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Hernandez also contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(a)(ii), because it wrongly characterized his prior robbery conviction under California Penal Code § 211 as a “crime of violence.” The district court did not err. See United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 , 893 & n. 10 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that a conviction under § 211 is categorically a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines).

AFFIRMED.

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