NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-16630 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-00359-LRH v. 3:12-cr-00032-LRH-WGC-1 ADOLPH VYTAUTAS STANKUS III, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 20, 2021** Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Adolph Vytautas Stankus III, appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), 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).

Stankus challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) for using a firearm during a crime of violence. Stankus’s contention that Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed. See United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 2020) (reaffirming that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)). Stankus asserts that Dominguez was wrongly decided, but as a three-judge panel, we are bound by the decision. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-16630