Case ID: f-appx_73/html/0294-01.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. Antonio ARGUETA-MALAGON, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 02-10515.
    D.C. No. CR-02-00238-PMP.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2003.
    
    Decided Aug. 20, 2003.
    Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Antonio Argueta-Malagon appeals from his guilty plea conviction for unlawful reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Argueta-Malagon concedes that Ninth Circuit precedent forecloses his argument that imposition of a sentence longer than 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)’s two-year statutory maximum based on a prior conviction neither alleged in the indictment nor admitted during the plea canvass violates due process under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). See United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000) (rejecting this argument). Argueta-Malagon states that he presents the issue merely to preserve it should ensuing Supreme Court precedent alter the legal landscape. The judgment is therefore.

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.