Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Francisco CANO-MATUS, Defendant- Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-23
Citations: 294 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 07-50255
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Francisco CANO-MATUS, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 297–298

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Francisco CANO-MATUS, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 07-50255.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 23, 2008.
Bruce R. Castetter, Neville S. Hedley, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Zandra L. Lopez, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Cano-Matus appeals the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing an 18-month sentence. He contends that the supervised release scheme set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583 is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because it allows incarceration authorized by judicial fact finding, rather than by a jury's verdict or a guilty plea. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We recently upheld the constitutionality of § 3583. See United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1221 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 549 U.S. 1014, 127 S.Ct. 545, 166 L.Ed.2d 403 (2006). Cano-Matus contends that Huerta-Pimental was undermined by Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007) (invalidating California's determinate sentencing law), and no longer is good law. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.