Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. José Juan MARTINEZ-GUEVARA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-03
Citations: 284 F. App'x 482
Docket Number: No. 07-50560
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. José Juan MARTINEZ-GUEVARA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 284
Pages: 482–483

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. José Juan MARTINEZ-GUEVARA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50560.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2008.
Filed July 3, 2008.
Valerie H. Chu, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy R. Garrison, Janet C. Tung, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, 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
José Martinez-Guevara appeals the sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the district court's judicial fact findings in support of the revocation sentence were unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In United States v. Huerta-Pimental we upheld the constitutionality of the supervised release scheme set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583. United States v. HuertaPimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1221 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 545, 166 L.Ed.2d 403 (2006). Martinez-Guevara contends that HueHa-Pimental was undercut by Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007) (invalidating California's determinate sentencing law), and no longer is good law. This contention is foreclosed by United, States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.