Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis AMPARO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-16
Citations: 167 F. App'x 608
Docket Number: No. 05-50327
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Luis AMPARO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 167
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Luis AMPARO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-50327.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 16, 2006.
Shanna L. Dougherty, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brian P. Funk, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Luis Amparo-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Amparo-Hernandez contends that the district court violated his constitutional rights in enhancing his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) and § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines based on a prior criminal conviction that was neither proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury nor admitted as part of the guilty plea and 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. This contention is foreclosed by this Court's case law. See United States v. Delaney, 427 F.3d 1224 1226 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes need not be proved to a jury or admitted by defendant to satisfy the Sixth Amendment); United States v. Moreno-Hemandez, 419 F.3d 906, 914 n. 8 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining that a district judge's enhancement of a sentence, based on the fact of a prior conviction under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, does not raise any Sixth Amendment problems); United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that we are bound to follow Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), 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.