Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Villa ZEPEDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-15
Citations: 207 F. App'x 792
Docket Number: No. 05-50908
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Villa ZEPEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 792–792

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Villa ZEPEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50908.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2006 .
Filed Nov. 15, 2006.
AUSA, Roger W. Haines, Jr., Esq., USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kurt D. Hermansen, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos Villa-Zepeda appeals from his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Villa-Zepeda contends that the district court erred by sentencing him to a term of 30 months when he only pled to the elements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), which carries a maximum sentence of two years. He also contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United, States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is no longer good law in light of the intervening Supreme Court decision Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005).
These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006) (rejecting after Shepard the specific contention that a § 1326(b) enhancement cannot be applied where the defendant did not admit the prior conviction during a guilty plea); United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that we are bound to follow Almendarez-Torres even though it has been called into question, unless it is explicitly overruled by the Supreme Court).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.