Case ID: f-appx_190/html/0559-01.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. Pedro CASTILLO-HIDALGO, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-50025.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2006.
    
    Decided July 21, 2006.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., Scott M. Gar-ringer, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Davina T. Chen, Esq., FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

We have reviewed the record and the opening brief. We conclude that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The United States Supreme Court’s decision in AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), remains binding. Further, we upheld the identical condition of supervised release challenged here in United States v. Rodriguez-Rodñguez, 441 F.3d 767, 772-73 (9th Cir.2006).

Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment is granted.

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.