NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 10 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 18-35203

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. Nos.    3:16-cv-01292-HZ
                                                             3:11-cr-00273-HZ-1
 v.

DANIEL JESUS ORTIZ,                             MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Oregon
                  Marco A. Hernández, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Federal prisoner Daniel Jesus Ortiz appeals from the district court’s order

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 

, 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).
      Ortiz contends that his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3), is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18

U.S.C. § 924(c). Contrary to Ortiz’s assertion, assault with a dangerous weapon

under section 113(a)(3) qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause of

section 924(c)(3)(A) because the offense “necessarily entails at least the threatened

use of violent physical force.” United States v. Gobert, 

, 882 (9th Cir.

2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the district court properly

denied relief under section 2255.

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2                                   18-35203