
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mickey Dean BEATY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30000.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed June 29, 2012.
    Frank Papagni, Assistant U.S., United States Attorney Office, Eugene, OR, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bear Wilner-Nugent, Esquire, Bear Wilner-Nugent, Counselor & Attorney at Law LLC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mickey Dean Beaty appeals the 27-month sentence imposed after the district court found that Beaty violated the terms of his supervised released by engaging in new criminal conduct, including possession of methamphetamine. The district court determined that Beaty’s methamphetamine possession constituted a Grade B violation under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3, mandating revocation of his supervised release.

Beaty contends that the maximum sentence he could have received for the state law crimes of which he was accused was one year, and therefore the resulting supervised release violation fell within Grade C under U.S.S.G. § 7Bl.l(a), and a sentencing range of 8-14 months. Beaty argues that the district court erred by looking to the maximum indeterminate sentence available for the state law crimes and by ignoring the shorter maximum determinate sentence provided by the Oregon Sentencing Guidelines. As Beaty acknowledges, his contention is foreclosed by this court’s case law. See United States v. Parry, 479 F.3d 722, 724-25 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Murillo, 422 F.3d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir.2005). We reject Beaty’s request that we reconsider our case law. See United States v. Mayer, 560 F.3d 948, 963-64 (9th Cir.2009) (following Murillo and Parry and noting that a 3-judge panel could not overrule another panel absent intervening Supreme Court authority).

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