Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruperto DELGADO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-27
Citations: 249 F. App'x 532
Docket Number: No. 06-10754
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ruperto DELGADO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 532–532

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ruperto DELGADO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-10754.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
Filed Sept. 27, 2007.
Robert L. Ellman, Esq., Robert A. Bork, Esq., USLV — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Brenda Horne, FPDNV — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ruperto Delgado-Rodriguez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, his sentence was enhanced with a prior conviction not alleged in the indictment, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or admitted during plea proceedings. He also contends that under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, § 1326 should be construed to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a prior conviction used to enhance a sentence. As Delgado-Rodriguez. acknowledges, these contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 846-47 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc); United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir. 2005), cert, denied, 547 U.S. 1114, 126 S.Ct. 1911, 164 L.Ed.2d 667 (2006). We therefore affirm the sentence.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.