Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro LABRA-VALLADARES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-09
Citations: 220 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 04-30211
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro LABRA-VALLADARES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 220
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro LABRA-VALLADARES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-30211.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 9, 2007.
Katherine Jill Bolton, Esq., USYA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
K. Elizabeth Dahlstrom, Esq., FDWAID — Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
On December 3, 2004, we affirmed the district court's judgment in this appeal. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded our disposition for consideration in light of its subsequent decision in United, States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Ramos-Birrueta v. United States, 543 U.S. 1183, 125 S.Ct. 1427,161 L.Ed.2d 185 (2005) (table).
We affirmed in our prior disposition the enhancement of appellant's sentence based on a conviction that was neither pled nor proved to a jury, relying on United States v. Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1130, 125 S.Ct. 1100, 160 L.Ed.2d 1085 (2005) (holding that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296,124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) did not overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998)), United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres).
We have recently reaffirmed this line of cases in light of the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Booker. See United States v. Brown, 417 F.3d 1077, 1078-79 (9th Cir.2005). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is again
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.