Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Eusebio PINEDA-HURTADO, aka Jose Eusebio Pineda, Victor Manuel Rodriguez-Fuentes, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-27
Citations: 192 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 05-50414
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jose Eusebio PINEDA-HURTADO, aka Jose Eusebio Pineda, Victor Manuel Rodriguez-Fuentes, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 192
Pages: 674–675

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jose Eusebio PINEDA-HURTADO, aka Jose Eusebio Pineda, Victor Manuel Rodriguez-Fuentes, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 05-50414.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 27, 2006.
Carlos Arguello, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ellis Johnston, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Eusebio Pineda-Hurtado appeals from the district court's order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 12-month sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pineda-Hurtado contends that the supervised release revocation statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the imposition of imprisonment upon revocation depends upon a fact not found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huertar-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2006) (holding supervised release scheme does not violate the Sixth Amendment principles recognized by Apprendi, and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and holding that revocation of supervised release and imposition of an additional term of imprisonment are discretionary and do not violate Booker).
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.