Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RIOS-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-22
Citations: 319 F. App'x 488
Docket Number: No. 08-50216
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RIOS-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 488–488

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RIOS-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50216.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 22, 2009.
Lauren J. Barefoot, Esquire, Randy K. Jones, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph M. McMullen, Esquire, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Luis Rios-Flores appeals from the 10-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rios-Flores contends that the scheme of supervised release revocation violates the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He acknowledges the contrary authority of United States v. Pluerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2006), and United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir.2008), but contends that these cases conflict with Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), and Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624 (9th Cir.2008). We reject these contentions. See Santana, 526 F.3d at 1262 (holding that Cunningham does not impact the validity of 18 U.S.C. § 3583's procedure for revocation of supervised release); see also Butler, 528 F.3d at 635 (analyzing Cunningham in the context of an initial sentencing, not in the context of supervised release).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.