Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Baltazar CARRANZA-MORENO, a.k.a. Baltizar Carranza-Moreno; et al., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-19
Citations: 235 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 06-10016
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Baltazar CARRANZA-MORENO, a.k.a. Baltizar Carranza-Moreno; et al., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Baltazar CARRANZA-MORENO, a.k.a. Baltizar Carranza-Moreno; et al., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10016.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007 .
Filed July 19, 2007.
George Ferko, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. Deeoncini, U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason M. Hannan, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Baltazar Carranza-Moreno appeals from his sentence imposed following his conviction for unlawful reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Carranza-Moreno contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level sentencing enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(l) for a prior drug trafficking conviction under California Health & Safety Code, § 11351.5. As Carranza-Moreno acknowledges in his reply brief, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Morales-Perez, 467 F.3d 1219, 1223 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that a conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11351.5 categorically qualifies as a drug trafficking offense under the Guidelines).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.