Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emilio CUBA-HUERTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-04
Citations: 298 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 07-10526
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emilio CUBA-HUERTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 631–632

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emilio CUBA-HUERTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10526.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
Aaron Wegner, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Randolfo Y. Lopez, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. 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
Emilio Cuba-Huerta appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cuba-Huerta contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level enhancement for a prior crime of violence, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A), because the sentence for his prior conviction was less than one year. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959, 963-64 (9th Cir. 2003).
We reject Cuba-Huerta's contention that Pimentelr-Flores is no longer good law in light of United States v. FigueroaOcampo, 494 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.