Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier GARCIA-MANZO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-14
Citations: 383 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 09-50313
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Francisco Javier GARCIA-MANZO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Francisco Javier GARCIA-MANZO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-50313.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 14, 2010.
Michelle Montgomery Pettit, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Erica Kristine Zunkel, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Javier Garcia-Manzo appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Garcia-Manzo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to ad dress his policy challenge to the enhancements that apply under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). The record reflects that the district court responded to Garcia-Manzo's argument and therefore did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Garcia-Manzo also contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), should be overruled. As Garcia-Manzo recognizes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir.2009) (recognizing that although the continuing viability of Almendarez-Torres has been called into question, this court is bound to follow controlling Supreme Court precedent).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.