Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin MENERA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-21
Citations: 245 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 06-30510
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin MENERA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 245
Pages: 674–676

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin MENERA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30510.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
Filed Aug. 21, 2007.
David Reese Jennings, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Russell Leonard, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martin Menera-Ramirez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month prison sentence for being found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgement.
Menera-Ramirez contends that because the information did not allege a prior qualifying conviction and he was only charged under § 1326(a), his 48-month sentence violates his due process rights as well as the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). His contentions are foreclosed by United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 995-96 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2097, 167 L.Ed.2d 817 (2007).
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 incorrect reference to § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d at 997.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.