Case ID: f-appx_76/html/0140-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alberto Andino OCHOA, a.k.a. Ernesto Oseguera-Ochoa, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-30164.
    D.C. No. CR-02-00158-1-AJB.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Sept. 17, 2003.
    Michael J. Brown, Asst. U.S. Atty., USPO-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Mark O. Hatfield, Portland, OR, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    J. Henry Langer, Salem, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Alberto Andino-Ochoa appeals his 57-month sentence following his jury trial conviction for illegal reentry. As AndinoOchoa concedes, his contention that the district court erred by making a 16-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i), based on both Andino-Oehoa’s original sentence of imprisonment for a prior drug-trafficking conviction and on subsequent incarcerations imposed for his probation violations, was rejected in United States v. Moreno-Cisneros, 319 F.3d 456 (9th Cir.2003). While Andino-Oehoa suggests that Moreno-Cisneros was wrongly decided, absent intervening Supreme Court authority, “one three-judge panel of this court cannot reconsider or overrule the decision of a prior panel.” United States v. Gay, 967 F.2d 322, 327 (9th Cir.1992). Accordingly, the district courtis

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.