Case ID: f-appx_302/html/0565-01.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. Augustin Jaime ORTIZ-ARROYO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50405.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 1, 2008.
    
      Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Randy K. Jones, Esquire, Assistant U.S., San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David James Zugman, Burcham & Zugman, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAYY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Augustin Jaime Ortiz-Arroyo appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the sentence and judgment, but remand to correct the judgment.

Ortiz-Arroyo contends that the magistrate judge erred by refusing to accept his guilty plea in order to give the government the opportunity to file a superseding indictment. This contention fails because Ortiz-Arroyo waived his right to challenge any defect in his previous plea proceedings by subsequently entering a guilty plea to the superseding indictment. See United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir.2005).

Ortiz-Arroyo also contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the district court’s enhancement of his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Because Ortiz-Arroyo admitted the date of his pri- or removal, this contention fails. See United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090, 1097-98 (9th Cir.2006).

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand with instructions that the district court delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to § 1326(b). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b) because it is a sentence enhancement and not a separate punishable offense).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.