Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe BERNAL-PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe Bernal-Portillo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-23
Citations: 279 F. App'x 536
Docket Number: Nos. 07-10344, 07-10345
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe BERNAL-PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe Bernal-Portillo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 536–536

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe BERNAL-PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe Bernal-Portillo, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 07-10344, 07-10345.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 20, 2008.
Filed May 23, 2008.
Robert A. Bork, Esq., Robert L. Ell-man, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brenda Weksler, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated cases, Noe Bernal-Portillo appeals from the 80-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bernal-Portillo contends that his sentence enhancement, based on a prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or admitted during plea proceedings, is unconstitutional. He further contends that, under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, § 1326 should be construed to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a prior conviction used to enhance a sentence. As Bernal-Portillo concedes, these contentions are foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 243-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 846-47 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc); United States v. Zepeda-Martinez, 470 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Bernal-Portillo does not raise any contentions regarding the 24-month sentence imposed in district court case CR-00-00294-PMP following revocation of supervised release,