Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yasmani Alejandro COYT, a/k/a Yasmani Alejandro Coyt-Valdovino, Yasmani Alejandr, Pelon and Pajaro, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-22
Citations: 180 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 05-50705
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yasmani Alejandro COYT, a/k/a Yasmani Alejandro Coyt-Valdovino, Yasmani Alejandr, Pelon and Pajaro, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 765–766

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yasmani Alejandro COYT, a/k/a Yasmani Alejandro Coyt-Valdovino, Yasmani Alejandr, Pelon and Pajaro, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-50705.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2006.
Decided May 22, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Sherilyn Peace Garnett, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Yasmani Alejandro Coyt appeals from the sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien found in the United States subsequent to deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm and remand.
Coyt contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He acknowledges that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but contends that subsequent decisions have undermined its viability such that Almendarez-Torres is no longer good law. This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079, n. 16 (9th Cir .2005).
Coyt also contends that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the imposition of a condition of supervised release that requires him to report to a U.S. probation officer within 72 hours of reentering the United States. This claim is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 772-73 (2006).
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the reference to § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.