Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando GARCIA-RODRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-15
Citations: 83 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 03-10341; D.C. No. CR-02-00486-PMP
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Armando GARCIA-RODRIQUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 227–228

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Armando GARCIA-RODRIQUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-10341.
D.C. No. CR-02-00486-PMP.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 15, 2003.
Robert A. Bork, 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 GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Armando Garcia-Rodriguez appeals the judgment of conviction and sentence fol lowing his guilty plea to one count of unlawful reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He concedes that Ninth Circuit precedent forecloses his argument that imposition of a sentence longer than 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)'s two-year statutory maximum based on a prior conviction neither alleged in the indictment nor admitted during the plea canvass violates due process under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 976, 122 S.Ct. 1450, 152 L.Ed.2d 392 (2002); United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414-15 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001).
Gareia-Rodriguez states that he presents the issue merely to preserve it should ensuing Supreme Court precedent alter the legal landscape. The judgment is therefore
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.