
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Antonio GONZALEZ-URENA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50237
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 22, 2018
    Ryan Fraser, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, California, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Mark R. Rehe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Antonio Gonzalez-Urena appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-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, and we affirm. ■

Gonzalez-Urena argues that his prior conviction under California Penal Code § 215 is not a crime of violence and, therefore, the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015). This claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Velasquez-Bosque, 601 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that § 215 is categorically a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2).

As Gonzalez-Urena acknowledges, his argument that Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), is clearly irreconcilable with Velasquez-Bosque or with the case on which it relies, United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 893 (9th Cir. 2008), is also foreclosed. See United States v. Chavez-Cuevas, 862 F.3d 729, 739-40 (9th Cir. 2017) (concluding that Descamps “did not impliedly abrogate Becerril-Lopez”).

We decline Gonzalez-Urena’s invitation to revisit the holdings of Velasquez-Bosque and Becerril-Lopez because his challenge to those holdings relies on “no change in the relevant statutes or regulations, nor in any governing authority.” United States v. Ramos-Medina, 706 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2013). “Absent such a change, only an en banc panel of our court may overrule or revise the binding precedent established by a published opinion.” Id. at 938-39.

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