Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dora FAJARDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-12
Citations: 292 F. App'x 695
Docket Number: No. 07-50515
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dora FAJARDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 292
Pages: 695–696

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dora FAJARDO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50515.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008 .
Filed Sept. 12, 2008.
United States Attorney, USSD—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kris J. Kraus, Esq., FDSD—Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dora Fajardo appeals the revocation of her supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation. Fajardo contends that the procedures by which her supervised release was revoked are unconstitutional. Fajardo argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), called into question the constitutionality of the revocation procedures, and undermined this court's holding in United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1014, 127 S.Ct. 545, 166 L.Ed.2d 403 (2006).
As Fajardo concedes in her reply brief, her contention is foreclosed by this court's recent decision in United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008) ("nothing in Cunningham calls into question the continuing authority of Huertcu-Pimental. Cunningham does not affect the validity of § 3583's procedure for revocation of supervised release.")
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.