Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe CARRASCO-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-13
Citations: 348 F. App'x 308
Docket Number: No. 09-50005
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe CARRASCO-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 308–309

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe CARRASCO-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50005.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 13, 2009.
Christopher Paul Tenorio, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Vincent James Brunkow, Esquire, Assistant Appellate Supervisor, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Felipe Carrasco-Rivera appeals his 48-month sentence and conviction for being a previously deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not err in imposing a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement for Carrasco-Rivera's prior conviction under California Penal Code § 288(a). See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). We previously have held that § 288(a) categorically constitutes a "crime of violence" under the approach set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). United States v. Medina-Maella, 351 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir.2003). For the reasons explained in United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2009), our recent decision in Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), does not change this conclusion.
As Carrasco-Rivera concedes, his remaining arguments — that we should limit Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), to its facts under the doctrine of constitutional doubt; that Almendarez-Ton-es has been overruled; and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional — are squarely foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Salazar-Lopez, 506 F.3d 748, 751 n. 3 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.