Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0735-01.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. Ramiro ALVARADO-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50268.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
    James Peter Melendres, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Vincent James Brunkow, Esquire, Assistant Appellate Supervisor, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramiro Alvarado-Flores appeals from the 75-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alvarado-Flores contends that the district court erred by determining that his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, because section 245(a)(1) does not contain the requisite use of force and is a general intent crime. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1191-97 (9th Cir.2009).

Alvarado-Flores also contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year statutory maximum for an 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violation. He argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), has been undermined and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 846-47 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc); see also United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006).

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