Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan ABARCA-SOTELO, a/k/a Juan Vargas-Sotelo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-24
Citations: 286 F. App'x 442
Docket Number: No. 08-10006
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan ABARCA-SOTELO, a/k/a Juan Vargas-Sotelo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 442–442

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan ABARCA-SOTELO, a/k/a Juan Vargas-Sotelo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10006.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2008.
Filed July 24, 2008.
Timothy Francisco Andrews, U.S. Attorneys Office, Yuma, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Daniel L. Kaplan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Juan Abarca-Sotelo, Florence, AZ, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable lor decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a direct criminal appeal of appellant's sentence for violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), enhanced by 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
We have reviewed the record and the opening brief and conclude that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The United States Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), remains binding on this court until the Court overrules it. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that this court remains bound by the Supreme Court's holding in Almendarez-Torres that the district court may enhance a sentence on the basis of prior convictions, even if the fact of those convictions was not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).
Accordingly, the government's unopposed motion for summary affirmance of the district court's judgment is granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.