Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio Cesar MORENO-GALINDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-22
Citations: 7 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 99-50348; D.C. No. CR-98-00773-ER
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio Cesar MORENO-GALINDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 7
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio Cesar MORENO-GALINDO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 99-50348. D.C. No. CR-98-00773-ER.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2001.
Decided March 22, 2001.
Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Julio Cesar Moreno-Galindo appeals his 70-month sentence imposed following conviction after a jury trial to a single count of being found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Because Moreno-Galindo did not object to the use of his prior aggravated felony to enhance his sentence, we review for plain error, United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, No. 99-50720, 2000 WL 33156290, at *3 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2000), and affirm.
Moreno-Galindo contends that the district court erred by sentencing him pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Specifically, he argues that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), requires that the fact of his prior conviction for an aggravated felony be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.
The plain language of Apprendi excludes from its holding prior convictions, thereby preserving the specific holding of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), that subsection (b)(2) constitutes a sentence enhancement and not a separate offense. Pacheco-Zepeda, at *4. The district court, therefore, properly sentenced Moreno-Galindo pursuant to subsection (b)(2). Id. at *5.
AFFIRMED.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.