Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artemio LOPEZ-SARAVIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-22
Citations: 101 F. App'x 712
Docket Number: No. 04-10016
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artemio LOPEZ-SARAVIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HALL, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 712–713

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artemio LOPEZ-SARAVIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-10016.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2004.
Decided June 22, 2004.
Robert A. Bork, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Jason F. Carr, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Artemio Lopez-Saravia appeals the judgment of conviction and his 30-month sentence for unlawful reentry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He concedes that Ninth Circuit precedent forecloses his argument that imposition of a sentence longer than 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)'s two-year statutory maximum based on a prior conviction neither alleged in the indictment nor admitted during the plea hearing violates due process under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 976, 122 S.Ct. 1450, 152 L.Ed.2d 392 (2002); United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414-15 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001). Lopez-Saravia states that he presents the issue merely to preserve it should ensuing Supreme Court precedent alter the legal landscape. The judgment is therefore
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.