Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gonzalo TAFOYA-ARELLANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-17
Citations: 243 F. App'x 322
Docket Number: No. 07-30085
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gonzalo TAFOYA-ARELLANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 243
Pages: 322–323

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gonzalo TAFOYA-ARELLANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30085.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007.
Filed Sept. 17, 2007.
Thomas J. Hanlon, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Alex B. Hernandez, III, Esq., Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, Tracy A. Staab, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendants Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
A review of the record and the opening brief indicates 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). Any error by the district court in enhancing appellant's sentence based on his removal "subsequent to" an aggravated felony conviction, which was neither proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial nor admitted by appellant, did not violate appellant's substantive rights. See United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090, 1097-98 (9th Cir.2006). In addition, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), remains binding on this court until the Court overrules it. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005).
Accordingly, the government's motion for summary affirmance of the district court's judgment is granted.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.