Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando SALAZAR-GALLARDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 361 F. App'x 888
Docket Number: No. 09-50077
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando SALAZAR-GALLARDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 888–888

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando SALAZAR-GALLARDO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50077.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
Michelle Montgomery Pettit, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shafly Moeel, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fernando Salazar-Gallardo appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Salazar-Gallardo alleges that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 227, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), was effectively overruled or limited by the doctrine of avoidance of constitutional doubt, and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. Salazar-Gallardo concedes that his contentions are foreclosed by our prior decisions, see United States v. Giisel, 488 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (holding that the date of a prior conviction is part of the "fact" of a prior conviction for Apprendi purposes); United States v. Salazar-Lopez, 506 F.3d 748, 751 n. 3 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 995-96 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is constitutional), and that he raises them to preserve them for potential future review.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.