Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ciro HERRERA-VASQUEZ, a.k.a. Ciro Herrera-Vazquez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-31
Citations: 669 F. App'x 937
Docket Number: No. 15-10559
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ciro HERRERA-VASQUEZ, a.k.a. Ciro Herrera-Vazquez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 937–938

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ciro HERRERA-VASQUEZ, a.k.a. Ciro Herrera-Vazquez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10559
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed October 31, 2016
Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee ,
Carlton Gunn, Esquire, Attorney, Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and GOULD, 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
Ciro Herrera-Vasquez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Herrera-Vasquez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the Guidelines range allegedly overstated the seriousness of his criminal history. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Herrera-Vasquez's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Herrera-Vasquez's criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
Herrera-Vasquez next contends the district court erred by enhancing his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Specifically, he argues that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which permits enhancement based on the existence of a prior felony, is no longer good law. As Herrera-Vasquez acknowledges, this argument is foreclosed. See Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (declining to revisit Almendarez-Torres); United States v. Leyva-Martinez, 632 F.3d 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2011) ("We have repeatedly held .,, that Almendarez-Torres is binding unless it is expressly overruled by the Supreme Court.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.