Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cruz INIGUEZ, aka Cruz Iniguez Garcia, aka Manuel Martinez, aka Gruz Garcia Iniguez, aka Seal A, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-03
Citations: 178 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 05-50294
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cruz INIGUEZ, aka Cruz Iniguez Garcia, aka Manuel Martinez, aka Gruz Garcia Iniguez, aka Seal A, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 670–671

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cruz INIGUEZ, aka Cruz Iniguez Garcia, aka Manuel Martinez, aka Gruz Garcia Iniguez, aka Seal A, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-50294.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2006.
Decided May 3, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Carmen R. Luege, Esq., USSA-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gary P. Burcham, Esq., Burcham & Zugman, San Diego, 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
Cruz Iniguez appeals the sentence imposed on remand from this court's decision in United States v. Iniguez, 368 F.3d 1113, 1117 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc). The sentence on remand was imposed after the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory, such that district judges could permissibly increase a sentence based on facts not proved to the jury.
Our case law forecloses Iniguez's contentions that retroactive application of the Booker remedial opinion, id., at 244-268, 125 S.Ct. 738, violates the Due Process Clause, see United States v. Dupas, 419 F.3d 916, 919-921 (9th Cir.2005), and the Ex Post Facto Clause, see United States v. Williams, 441 F.3d 716, 725 (9th Cir.2006).
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.