Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Francisco CASTREJON-ALVAREZ, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-21
Citations: 189 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 05-30621
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Francisco CASTREJON-ALVAREZ, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 189
Pages: 677–677

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Francisco CASTREJON-ALVAREZ, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 05-30621.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2006.
Filed July 21, 2006.
James P. Hagarty, Esq., USYA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tracy Staab, FPDWA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We have reviewed the record and the opening brief. We conclude 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).
Appellant's argument that the fact of the temporal relationship of the removal to the prior conviction is beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's recidivism exception is foreclosed by United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.2001). Further, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), remains binding.
Accordingly, the government's motion for summary affirmance of the district court's judgment is granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.