
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro OROZCO-MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50120
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed September 29, 2017
    Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Doug Keller, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. 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

Alejandro Orozco-Madrigal appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Orozco-Madrigal contends that his prior conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm under California Penal Code § 245(b) is not a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2014). This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (violation of section 245 “is categorically a crime of violence” under § 2L1.2). Contrary to Orozco-Ma-drigal’s contention, our decision in Grajeda is not “clearly irreconcilable” with either Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), or Almanza-Arenas v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 469 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

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