Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Enrique SIERRA-GAITAN, aka John Doe, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-17
Citations: 177 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 05-50402
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Luis Enrique SIERRA-GAITAN, aka John Doe, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, MCKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 622–622

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Luis Enrique SIERRA-GAITAN, aka John Doe, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-50402.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2006.
Decided April 17, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Shannon P. Ryan, Esq., United States Attorney Asst. U.S. Attorney, Narcotics Section, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James H. Locklin, Esq., FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, MCKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Enrique Sierra-Gaitan appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Sierra-Gaitan contends that the holding of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is severely limited, and that the district court violated his constitutional rights in enhancing his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a non-jury fact finding regarding his prior conviction. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that we are bound to follow Almendarez-Torres, even though it has been called into question, unless it is explicitly overruled by the Supreme Court). Similarly, there is no merit to Sierra-Gaitan's remaining contention that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). See United States v. Ochoa-Gaytan, 265 F.3d 837, 845-46 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that Apprendi carved out an exception for prior convictions that specifically preserved the holding of Almendarez-Torres ). Sierra-Gaitan concedes that his contentions are foreclosed by this court's recent decisions, but raises them to preserve the issues on appeal.
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.