Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio PULIDO-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-24
Citations: 23 F. App'x 880
Docket Number: No. 01-10064; D.C. No. CR-00-00214-1-RLH
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio PULIDO-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 23
Pages: 880–881

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio PULIDO-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-10064.
D.C. No. CR-00-00214-1-RLH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2002 .
Decided Jan. 24, 2002.
Before KLEINFELD, HAWKINS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sergio Pulido-Moreno appeals the judgment of conviction and 42-month sentence following his guilty plea to a single count of being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Pulido-Moreno contends that in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court erred by denying Pulido-Moreno a reduction in his sentencing offense level to the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) because he did not admit through his guilty plea that Pulido-Moreno had sustained a prior aggravated felony conviction. He also contends that Apprendi renders inapplicable Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense). As PulidoMoreno concedes, these arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001). Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.
We remand for the limited purpose of directing the district court to amend the judgment to reflect a conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) only. See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.2000) (sua sponte remanding to the district court with directions to correct the judgment of conviction to exclude a reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)).
AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.