Case ID: f-appx_294/html/0297-02.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 CANO-MATUS, Defendant— Appellant.
    No. 07-50255.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 23, 2008.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Neville S. Hedley, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Zandra L. Lopez, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Cano-Matus appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing an 18-month sentence. He contends that the supervised release scheme set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583 is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because it allows incarceration authorized by judicial fact finding, rather than by a jury’s verdict or a guilty plea. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We recently upheld the constitutionality of § 3583. See United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1221 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 549 U.S. 1014, 127 S.Ct. 545, 166 L.Ed.2d 403 (2006). Cano-Matus contends that Huerta-Pimental was undermined by Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007) (invalidating California’s determinate sentencing law), and no longer is good law. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008).

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