Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos CONTRERAS-ARREDONDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-14
Citations: 201 F. App'x 540
Docket Number: No. 05-50807
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos CONTRERAS-ARREDONDO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 201
Pages: 540–540

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos CONTRERAS-ARREDONDO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-50807.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 11, 2006.
Filed Sept. 14, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Mary Carter Andrues, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jonathan D. Libby, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos Contreras-Arredondo appeals from his conviction and 57-month sentence imposed for being an alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We reject appellant's contention that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005). To the extent that appellant contends that his plea colloquy was defective for this reason, his contention fails accordingly.
Further, appellant's contention that the condition of supervised release requiring him to report to a probation officer within 72 hours of reentering the United States violates his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is foreclosed by this court's opinion in United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 772-73 (9th Cir.2006).
Finally, we conclude that the district court did not act unreasonably in imposing the sentence. See Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d at 769-71.
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.