Case ID: f-appx_383/html/0660-01.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. Francisco Javier GARCIA-MANZO, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-50313.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 14, 2010.
    Michelle Montgomery Pettit, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Erica Kristine Zunkel, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Javier Garcia-Manzo appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Garcia-Manzo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his policy challenge to the enhancements that apply under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). The record reflects that the district court responded to Garcia-Manzo’s argument and therefore did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Garcia-Manzo also contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), should be overruled. As Garcia-Manzo recognizes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir.2009) (recognizing that although the continuing viability of Almendarez-Torres has been called into question, this court is bound to follow controlling Supreme Court precedent).

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