Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador ESTRELLA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-26
Citations: 222 F. App'x 579
Docket Number: No. 05-50596
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador ESTRELLA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 579–580

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador ESTRELLA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50596.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
Filed Feb. 26, 2007.
USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Zandra L. Lopez, Esq., FDSD — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Salvador Estrella-Acosta appeals from the sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Estrella-Acosta contends that the revocation of his supervised release violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Specifically, he contends that the revocation procedure is unconstitutional because it allows for an additional term of imprisonment not authorized by the jury's verdict, and because it permits revocation based on judge-found facts established only by a preponderance of the evidence. EstrellaAcosta also asserts that his contentions are not foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2006). We disagree. See id. at 1225 (holding that the revocation of supervised release and the resulting punishment is part of the original sentence and requires no impermissible judicial fact-finding, and that because revocation and the imposition of additional punishment are discretionary, neither violate Booker or the Sixth Amendment).
Because Estrella-Acosta's contentions fail, we need not consider his remedy claims.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.