Case Information
*1 Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ascension Hernandez-Jimenez challenges the 30-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.
*2 Hernandez-Jimenez contends that the district court erred by relying on his prior conviction under California Penal Code § 288(a) to impose a 16-level enhancement to his base offense level. We have previously held that a conviction under § 288(a) constitutes “sexual abuse of a minor,” which is a “crime of violence” that warrants a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See United States v. Medina-Villa , 567 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2009). We cannot disregard that precedent unless it is “clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority.” Miller v. Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Hernandez-Jimenez contends that recent California case law reflects that § 288(a) is broader than the federal definition because a defendant can be found guilty under § 288(a) even if the victim suffered no harm. Even if the California cases cited by Hernandez-Jimenez are “higher authority,” they are not inconsistent with federal law, which holds that, regardless of harm, “sexual conduct involving [children younger than fourteen years old] is per se abusive.” United States v. Farmer , 627 F.3d 416, 419 (9th Cir. 2010).
Nor is our precedent clearly irreconcilable with Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) or Moncrieffe v. Holder , 569 U.S. 184 (2013). Since both decisions, we have recognized the continuing force of Medina-Villa . See United States v. Rocha-Alvarado , 843 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. *3 Ct. 2214 (2017).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).