
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank CORDOVA-GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Frank Cordova, a.k.a. Frank Efraim Cordova, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10342
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 3, 2016
    Angela Marie Martinez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    J. Ryan Moore, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Matei Tarail, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office (Tucson), Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. 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

Frank Cordova-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cordova-Gonzalez argues that the district court erred in imposing a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) for his 2006 Nevada state court conviction for robbery pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.380. We review de novo the district court’s determination that a defendant’s prior state court conviction qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 889 (9th Cir. 2008). Contrary to his contention, Cordova-Gonzalez’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Harris, 572 F.3d 1065, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] conviction under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.380 categorically qualifies as a crime of violence.”).

Furthermore, we note that the district court concluded that the 16-level enhancement required under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) overstated Cordova-Gon-zalez’s criminal history, and accordingly varied downward from a guidelines range of 41-51 months to impose an 18-month sentence.

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