U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2019

United States v. Mitchum Pastor

United States v. Mitchum Pastor
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 19, 2019

United States v. Mitchum Pastor

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10330 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00058-JMS v. MEMORANDUM* MITCHUM PASTOR, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii J. Michael Seabright, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2019** Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Mitchum Pastor appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery and credit union robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* 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).

Pastor contends that the district court erred by sentencing him as a career offender because federal bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), is not a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. As Pastor concedes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782, 786 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 203 (2018). Pastor claims that Watson should be reconsidered but recognizes that this panel has no power to overrule circuit precedent in this case. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three- judge panel may depart from circuit precedent only if that precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-10330

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.