Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel CASTELO-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-17
Citations: 203 F. App'x 120
Docket Number: No. 06-50071
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel CASTELO-VALENCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 120–120

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel CASTELO-VALENCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-50071.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2006.
Filed Oct. 17, 2006.
Randy K. Jones, Esq., Roger W. Haines, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellee.
Leila W. Morgan, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant — Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We have reviewed the record and the opening brief and conclude that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United, States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The United States Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), remains binding on this court until the Court overrules it. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006) (rejecting claim that Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), and Dretke v. Haley, 541 U.S. 386, 124 S.Ct. 1847, 158 L.Ed.2d 659 (2004), require this court to apply Almendarez-Torres only to cases where the defendant admitted prior convictions); United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that this court remains bound by the Supreme Court's holding in AlmendarezTorres that a district court judge may enhance a sentence on the basis of prior convictions, even if the fact of those convictions was not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).
Accordingly, the government's motion for summary affirmance of the district court's judgment is granted.
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.