Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin VEGA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-10
Citations: 250 F. App'x 812
Docket Number: No. 07-50113
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martin VEGA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 812–813

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martin VEGA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-50113.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 1, 2007 .
Filed Oct. 10, 2007.
Christopher R. McFadden, Esq., USSDOffice of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shaffy Moeel, FDSD-Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The 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. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that this court remains bound by the Supreme Court's holding in Almendarez-Torres that a district 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). Moreover, appellant's related arguments regarding the continued validity of Almendarez-Torres and constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are foreclosed. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006).
Accordingly, the government's unopposed motion for summary affirmance of the district court's judgment is granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.