From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Pridgette

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 29, 2019
No. 16-30274 (9th Cir. May. 29, 2019)

Opinion

No. 16-30274

05-29-2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAJAI JAMAR PRIDGETTE, Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00281-EJL-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

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

Lajai Jamar Pridgette appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 120-month concurrent sentences imposed on remand following his jury-trial conviction for possession of a counterfeit access device and counterfeit access device making equipment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3), (4); possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pridgette first contends that the district court erred in determining that his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is a categorical crime of violence under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and 4B1.2(a). Pridgette's argument is foreclosed by United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1060, 1065-68 (9th Cir. 2018), which was decided after briefing in this case was complete. In Vasquez-Gonzalez, this court held that section 245(a)(1) is a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), which is materially identical to § 4B1.2(a)(1). See id. at 1068; see also United States v. Werle, 877 F.3d 879, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating that the language of § 16(a) "largely mirrors" the language of § 4B1.2(a)(1)).

Pridgette also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the circumstances of the offense and Pridgette's lengthy criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Pridgette

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 29, 2019
No. 16-30274 (9th Cir. May. 29, 2019)
Case details for

United States v. Pridgette

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAJAI JAMAR PRIDGETTE…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 29, 2019

Citations

No. 16-30274 (9th Cir. May. 29, 2019)

Citing Cases

Pridgette v. United States

This time, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence. United States v. Pridgette, 771 F. App'x 382, 382 (9th…