Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo RODRIGUEZ-CARBAJAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-22
Citations: 274 F. App'x 603
Docket Number: No. 07-50266
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodolfo RODRIGUEZ-CARBAJAL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 603–603

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodolfo RODRIGUEZ-CARBAJAL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-50266.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 15, 2008.
Filed April 22, 2008.
Nicholas Depento, Law Offices of Nicholas Depento, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is an appeal of the district court's sentence for appellant's violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
We have reviewed the record and the opening brief and conclude that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The United States Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), remains binding on this court until the Court overrules it. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that this court remains bound by the Supreme Court's holding in Almendarez-Torres that the district court may enhance a sentence on the basis of prior convictions, even if the fact of those convictions was not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).
Accordingly, the government's motion for summary affirmance of the district court's judgment is granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.