Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joaquin PARAMO-MACIEL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-21
Citations: 396 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 09-50550
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joaquin PARAMO-MACIEL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joaquin PARAMO-MACIEL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50550.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 21, 2010.
Zachary James, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S., Lara Alaine Stingley, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Janet Tung, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, 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
Joaquin Paramo-Maciel appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to attempted entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Paramo-Maciel contends that the district court erred when it imposed a sentence in excess of the two-year statutory maximum under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He asserts that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), has been effectively overruled by Nijhawan v. Holder, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009). As Paramo-Maciel concedes, Almendarez-Torres has never been expressly overruled and continues to constitute binding precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1051 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam); United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 472 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.