Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario VALENCIA-OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-01
Citations: 667 F. App'x 919
Docket Number: No. 16-50007
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario VALENCIA-OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 919–920

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario VALENCIA-OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50007
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 01, 2016
Andrew Richard Haden, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jennifer Lynn Coon, Attorney, Law Office of Jennifer L. Coon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Valencia-Ochoa appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valencia-Ochoa contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), which provides that a district court may revoke supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release, is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2848, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As Valencia-Ochoa concedes, this claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.