Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Angel AGUIRRE-TRUEVA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-01
Citations: 10 F. App'x 593
Docket Number: No. 00-50369; D.C. No. CR-00-115-GHK
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Angel AGUIRRE-TRUEVA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Angel AGUIRRE-TRUEVA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-50369.
D.C. No. CR-00-115-GHK.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2001.
Decided June 1, 2001.
Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Aguirre-Trueva appeals from his guilty plea conviction to being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Aguirre-Trueva contends that the district court erred when it increased his base offense level by 16 points because the fact that his prior deportation followed an aggravated felony conviction was neither admitted nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. He further contends that Apprendi calls into question the continuing validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Aguirre-Trueva's contentions, however, are foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 413-14 (9th Cir.2000), as amended, (Feb.8, 2001). United States v. Castillo Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir.2001).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.