Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo GARDEA-VENEGAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-14
Citations: 81 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 02-10555; D.C. No. CR-01-01544-DCB
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo GARDEA-VENEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo GARDEA-VENEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-10555.
D.C. No. CR-01-01544-DCB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 10, 2003.
Decided Nov. 14, 2003.
Bruce M. Ferg, Deputy Atty. Gen., Julia Soto, Evo A. DeConcini, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marcy Miranda Janes, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KOZINSKI, SILVERMAN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arturo Gardea-Venegas appeals the 24-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.
Gardea-Venegas contends that the district court erred by adding a 12-level enhancement to his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) after finding that his prior state conviction was a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed was less than 13 months. Because judicially noticeable facts in the state court's sentencing order clearly establish that Gardea-Venegas pled guilty to a drug trafficking offense, see United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 1211 (en banc) (noting that "[wjhen the statute of conviction does not facially qualify as [a drug trafficking offense] . courts may examine the record for 'documentation or judicially noticeable facts that clearly establish that the conviction is a predicate conviction for enhancement purposes'") (citation omitted), and because the probationary sentence imposed for that offense included less than 13 months incarceration, see U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(B) & cmt. n. l(A)(iv), we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.