Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro GOANA-CERVANTES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-26
Citations: 256 F. App'x 130
Docket Number: No. 07-10155
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro GOANA-CERVANTES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro GOANA-CERVANTES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10155.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007 .
Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
Ronald C. Rachow, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Michael K. Powell, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alvaro Goana-Cervantes appeals from his 41-month sentence for illegal reentry by a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
To the extent Goana-Cervantes contends that his sentence should not have exceeded two years because his prior conviction did not satisfy the conditions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), we disagree. GoanaCervantes's uncontested prior conviction for felony statutory rape was sufficient to enhance his sentence beyond two years. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
To the extent Goana-Cervantes contends that the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority by altering the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, we conclude there was no plain error. See United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959, 967 (9th Cir.2003). To the extent Goana-Cervantes otherwise contends that his sentence was impermissible, we likewise conclude there was no plain error. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.