Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Antonio SALABART-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-24
Citations: 90 F. App'x 993
Docket Number: No. 03-10499
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. George Antonio SALABART-GUTIERREZ, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 90
Pages: 993–993

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. George Antonio SALABART-GUTIERREZ, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 03-10499.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2004.
Decided March 24, 2004.
Robert A. Bork, Esq., USLV — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason F. Carr, Esq., Anne R. Traum, Esq., FPDNV — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before B. FLETCHER, LEAVY and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
George Antonio Salabart-Gutierrez appeals the judgment of conviction and his 85-month sentence for unlawful reentry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He concedes that Ninth Circuit precedent forecloses his argument that imposition of a sentence longer than 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)'s two-year statutory maximum based on a prior conviction neither alleged in the indictment nor admitted during the plea hearing violates due process under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 976, 122 S.Ct. 1450, 152 L.Ed.2d 392 (2002); United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414-15 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001). Salabart-Gutierrez states that he presents the issue merely to preserve it should ensuing Supreme Court precedent alter the legal landscape. The judgment is therefore 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.