Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime GARCIA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-25
Citations: 25 F. App'x 675
Docket Number: No. 01-50193. D.C. No. CR-00-01666-JTM
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime GARCIA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 25
Pages: 675–675

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime GARCIA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-50193. D.C. No. CR-00-01666-JTM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2002.
Decided Jan. 25, 2002.
Before KLEINFELD, HAWKINS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jaime Garcia-Chavez appeals the judgment of conviction and 37-month sentence following his guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garcia-Chavez contends that in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court improperly imposed a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) because the government neither pled in the indictment nor established through the guilty plea that Garcia-Chavez had sustained a prior aggravated felony conviction. He also contends that Apprendi renders inapplicable Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense). These arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001). Accordingly, the district court's judgment is
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.