
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santos VALDOVINO-TORREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50047
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 23, 2017
    Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Ward Stafford Clay, Attorney, Law Offices of Ward Stafford Clay, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Santos Valdovino-Torrez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 77-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. We affirm.

Valdovino-Torrez contends that the district court erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2014), based on his prior conviction for attempted infliction of corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant, in violation of California Penal Code § 273.5. This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 820 (9th Cir. 2010) (conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 273.5 is a categorical crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2); see also United States v. Saavedra-Velazquez, 578 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 2009) (definition of “attempt” under California law is coextensive with federal definition of “attempt” for purposes of Guideline governing 16-level enhancement based on prior crime of violence felony conviction). Contrary to Valdovino-Torrez’s contention, the 16-level enhancement was not predicated on a residual clause like that struck down in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015).

Valdovino-Torrez next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Valdovino-Torrez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Valdovino-Torrez’s extensive criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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