
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel ROMERO, a.k.a. Bam, a.k.a. Bambam, a.k.a. Eddie Diaz, a.k.a. Daniel Macias, a.k.a. Adrian Gabriel Romero, a.k.a. Youngster, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50170.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed March 25, 2013.
    Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Melanie Ann Sartoris, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas W. Kielty, Law Offices of Thomas W. Kielty, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and/or ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Romero contends that the district court erred by denying him a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), solely on the basis that he went to trial. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 2 (a defendant who goes to trial is not automatically precluded from receiving an acceptance of responsibility adjustment). Any error was harmless because, in lieu of an acceptance of responsibility adjustment, the court granted a two-level downward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to reflect the fact Romero did not contest that he possessed a firearm. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir.2011).

The government’s motion, filed on July 23, 2012, to strike portions of Romero’s opening brief and excerpts of record is granted.

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