With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". PER CURIAM: Jose Antonio Leyva-Martinez appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his conviction for attempted re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Leyva-Martinez contends that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), because his prior conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or co-habitant, in violation of California Penal Code § 273.5, does not qualify as a crime of violence. As Leyva-Martinez concedes however, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 216, 178

A: holding that under iowa code  7098 the offense of lascivious acts with a child was a crime of violence because it involved a substantial risk that physical force would be used against the child victim in the course of committing the offense
B: holding that a conviction under california penal code  2735 is categorically at crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines because the offense requires the intentional use of physical force against the person of another
C: holding that  459 is categorically a crime of violence under guidelines  4b12a2 because the usual or ordinary firstdegree burglary in california involves conduct that presents a serious risk of physical violence and injury to others
D: holding that the state felony offense of taking indecent liberties with a child categorically constituted a crime of violence for purposes of the career offender sentencing guidelines
B.