¶2 Edwin Oswaldo Herrera-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 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.
¶3 Herrera-Ramirez challenges the district court’s imposition of the 16-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Because Herrera-Ramirez did not object below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419, 426-28 (9th Cir.2011).
¶4 ' The district court did not plainly err by concluding that Herrera-Ramirez’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.471, constituted a categorical “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). See Camacko-Cruz v. Holder, 621 F.3d 941, 943 (9th Cir.2010) (section 200.471 constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)); United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1190-91 (9th Cir.2009) (reasoning of cases addressing the “crime of violence” definition under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) applies to cases involving U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2). As such, no modified categorical analysis was required. See Grajeda, 581 F.3d at 1189. Further, the district court did not err by failing to consider the length of Herrera-Ramirez’s prior term of imprisonment; the Guideline does not define “crime of violence” by reference to the length of the defendant’s sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) & cmt. n. 1(B)(iii).
¶5 AFFIRMED.