
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jackar LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10295
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    
      Merry Jean Chan, Esquire, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Joyce Leavitt, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Oakland), Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. , See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jackar Love appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under '28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Love contends that the district court improperly determined that his prior robbery conviction under California Penal Code § 211 was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2015) and, therefore, improperly determined his base offense level. This claim fails. Love necessarily committed either generic robbery or generic extortion, see United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 892 (9th Cir. 2008), both of which are enumerated crimes of violence. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.l (2015). Accordingly, his conviction is a categorical crime of violence. See Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d at 893 & n.10; see also U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.l (2015) (defining “crime of violence” as having the meaning given that term in section 4B1.2 and its Application Note 1). Contrary to Love’s contention, the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), had no effect on the Guidelines. See Beckles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     