
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe de Jesus OLVERA-CAMPOS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50050.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 22, 2010.
    
      Thomas Blanchard Snyder, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Carl Lemon, II, Law Offices of John C. Lemon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Felipe Olvera-Campos appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Olvera-Campos contends that the district court erred when it imposed a sentence in excess of the two-year statutory maximum under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He asserts that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), has been effectively overruled by Nijhawan v. Holder, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009). This contention lacks merit. Almendarez-Torres has never been expressly overruled and continues to constitute binding precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1051 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam ); United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 472 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir.2007).

As Olvera-Campos concedes, his assertion that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level “crime of violence” adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii), based on his prior conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, in violation of California Penal Code § 273.5, is foreclosed. See United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that a conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5 is categorically a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines because the offense requires the intentional use of physical force against the person of another).

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