
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10364.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 20, 2013.
    Jesse Joseph Figueroa, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Douglas Tyler Francis, Esquire, Ellin-wood Francis & Plowman, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Manuel Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-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.

Hernandez contends that the district court erred when it used his prior conviction both as a basis for a 16-level enhancement and in calculating his criminal history category. As Hernandez concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1050 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Hernandez also contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(a)(ii), because it wrongly characterized his prior robbery conviction under California Penal Code § 211 as a “crime of violence.” The district court did not err. See United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 893 & n. 10 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that a conviction under § 211 is categorically a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines).

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