With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Juan Antonio Gonzalez-Urena appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C, § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291, and we affirm. ■ Gonzalez-Urena argues that his prior conviction under California Penal Code § 215 is not a crime of violence and, therefore, the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015). This claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Velasquez-Bosque, 601 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). As Gonzalez-Urena acknowledges, his argument

A: holding mailing a threatening letter was a crime of violence for the purposes of ussg  4b11
B: holding south carolina crime of criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature was categorically a crime of violence under ussg  4b121 because its lesserincluded offense criminal domestic violence fell entirely within  4b12ls force clause
C: holding that robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of habitualoffender sentencing
D: holding that  215 is categorically a crime of violence for purposes of ussg  2l12
D.