Case ID: f-appx_207/html/0798-01.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 SOTO-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-50955.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.
    
    Filed Nov. 15, 2006.
    U.S. Attorney, USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Shafiy Moeel, FDSD-Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendan1>-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Soto-Castillo appeals the revocation of supervised release following his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Soto-Castillo contends that the supervised release revocation proceedings violate United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and his Sixth Amendment rights because imposition of the maximum penalty depends on a fact not found by a jury. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huertas-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2006) holding that the revocation of supervised release and the resulting punishment is part of the original sentence and requires no impermissible judicial fact-finding, and that because revocation and the imposition of additional punishment are discretionary, neither violate Booker nor the Sixth Amendment.

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.