Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Francisco BANDA, Defendant- Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-21
Citations: 189 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 05-50921
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Francisco BANDA, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 189
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Francisco BANDA, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 05-50921.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2006.
Filed July 21, 2006.
Kevin M. Kelly, Esq., Roger W. Haines, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carey D. Gorden, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Banda appeals the district court's order revoking his supervised release and imposing sentence. He contends that the supervised release regime violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348,147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the imposition of the maximum penalty depends upon a fact not found by the jury. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that because supervised release is imposed as part of the sentence authorized by the fact of conviction and requires no judicial fact-finding, it does not violate the Sixth Amendment principles recognized by Apprendi and Blakely; that a district court's decision to revoke supervised release and impose associated penalties is for the same reasons constitutional; and that because the revocation of supervised release and imposition of an additional term of imprisonment is discretionary, neither violates Booker).
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.