Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raimundo MARTINEZ-OROSCO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-03
Citations: 284 F. App'x 482
Docket Number: No. 07-50526
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raimundo MARTINEZ-OROSCO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 284
Pages: 482–482

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raimundo MARTINEZ-OROSCO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50526.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2008.
Filed July 3, 2008.
Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Zandra L. Lopez, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raimundo Martinez-Orosco appeals the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. Martinez-Orosco's contention that the supervised release regime is unconstitutional and that United States v. HuertaPimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2006), has been undermined by the Supreme Court's decision in Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008). Huerta-Pimental remains good law after Cunningham, and the revocation of Martinez-Orosco's supervised release and resulting imposition of his sentence did not violate his constitutionally protected right. Id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.