Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Joe KABINTO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-22
Citations: 414 F. App'x 990
Docket Number: No. 10-10214
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Joe KABINTO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 990–990

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Joe KABINTO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10214.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 22, 2011.
Dimitra Sampson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Craig S. Orent, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daniel Joe Kabinto appeals from the district court's order recommitting him pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246. We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, see United States v. Godinez-Ortiz, 563 F.3d 1022, 1026-29 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
Kabinto contends that the district court does not have authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 to recommit him to an institution for a dangerousness assessment. As he concedes, however, this contention is foreclosed by Godinez-Ortiz, 563 F.3d at 1029-32.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.