Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin CANDIDO-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-15
Citations: 146 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 04-10557
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martin CANDIDO-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martin CANDIDO-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-10557.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
Decided Aug. 15, 2005.
Brian J. Quarles, Esq., USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason F. Carr, Esq., FPDNV—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martin Candido-Gonzalez appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court violated his constitutional rights in making an upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(B) for a prior drug-trafficking conviction. As Candido-Gonzalez acknowledges, this contention is foreclosed by this court's case law. See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906, 914 n. 8 (9th Cir.2005) (amended opin ion). In his opening brief, Candido-Gonzalez declined to exercise his right to request a remand for resentencing under United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.