Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin RODRIGUEZ-PORCAYO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-21
Citations: 235 F. App'x 610
Docket Number: No. 05-50718
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martin RODRIGUEZ-PORCAYO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martin RODRIGUEZ-PORCAYO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-50718.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2007 .
Filed Aug. 21, 2007.
USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Stewart M. Young, Esq., U.S. Attorneys Office, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Siri Shetty, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendan1>-Appellant.
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martin Rodriguez-Porcayo appeals from his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rodriguez-Porcayo contends that the district court denied him due process by relying on an allegedly illegal deportation to increase his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(D). We disagree. See Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc); United States v. Diaz-Luevano, No. 05-50129, — F.3d -, 2007 WL 2044256 (9th Cir. July 18, 2007) (per curiam).
Rodriguez-Porcayo also contends that his constitutional rights were violated because the indictment did not charge a prior conviction and he did not admit the prior conviction. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006).
Finally, Rodriguez-Porcayo contends that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional on its face because it permits the district court to raise the statutory maximum based on facts found by the judge and neither admitted by the defendant nor found by the jury. This contention also is foreclosed. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d at 1091.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.