Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0592-01.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 Antonio VALLADARES-PUERTO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-50810.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 20, 2007.
    U.S. Attorneys Office, Stacey H. Sullivan, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jason I. Ser, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Antonio Valladares-Puerto appeals from the 15-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Valladares-Puerto contends that any reliance by the district court on a reinstatement of removal order for purposes of imposing a four-level upward adjustment in his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(D) violated his due process rights because the applicable regulations are ultra vires to the Attorney General’s legislative authority. We reject this contention. See also United States v. Luna-Madellaga, 315 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Diaz-Luevano, No. 05-50129, 494 F.3d 1159, 1162-63, 2007 WL 2044256 at *2-3 (9th Cir. July 18, 2007).

Valladares-Puerto further contends that the district court erred in sentencing him pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) to more than the maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He also asserts that, in light of Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), has been overruled and § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.2006) (rejecting as foreclosed the contention that Shepard limited the Almendarez-Torres holding to cases where a defendant has admitted his prior convictions during a guilty plea and affirming the validity of Almendarez-Torres).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.