NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30274 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00281-EJL-1 v. MEMORANDUM* LAJAI JAMAR PRIDGETTE, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

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);

* 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). 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.

2 16-30274