Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vicente RIOS-RIOS, a.k.a. Vicente Rios, a.k.a. Mario Hernandez a.k.a. Mario Rios, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-09
Citations: 302 F. App'x 734
Docket Number: No. 08-10199
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vicente RIOS-RIOS, a.k.a. Vicente Rios, a.k.a. Mario Hernandez a.k.a. Mario Rios, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 734–735

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vicente RIOS-RIOS, a.k.a. Vicente Rios, a.k.a. Mario Hernandez a.k.a. Mario Rios, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10199.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 1, 2008.
Filed Dec. 9, 2008.
Sarah L. Hartnett, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Juan Rocha, Federal Public Defenders Office, Yuma, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant pled guilty to an indictment charging illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On appeal, appellant argues that the district court erroneously failed to inform him that, were he to proceed to a jury trial, the government would be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was convicted of a prior offense. Appellant concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See also United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000).
A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.