Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose CONTRERAS-ALVARDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-29
Citations: 35 F. App'x 694
Docket Number: No. 01-50014; D.C. No. CR-00-01742-IEG
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose CONTRERAS-ALVARDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 35
Pages: 694–695

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose CONTRERAS-ALVARDO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-50014.
D.C. No. CR-00-01742-IEG.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2002 .
Decided May 29, 2002.
Before FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Contreras-Alvarado appeals his conviction and sentence of time served and two years of supervised release, imposed after pleading guilty to importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Contreras-Alvarado contends the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, in which he challenged the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 960 in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This contention is foreclosed by our recent decisions in United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002) (upholding facial constitutionality of § 960) and United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2002) (same, as to § 952). Moreover, the district court properly imposed a sentence based upon a drug type and quantity to which Contreras-Alvarado admitted in his guilty plea. See Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d at 1110 (finding no error where district court determined drug quantity by preponderance of evidence and sentenced defendant below statutory maximum).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.