Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victoriano MEDINA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-13
Citations: 115 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 04-50246
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victoriano MEDINA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victoriano MEDINA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-50246.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 13, 2004.
Renee M. Bunker, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Richard J. Boesen, Esq., Law Offfice of Richard Boesen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Victoriano Medina-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
We lack jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of his request for a downward departure because there is no indication in the record that the district court believed it lacked the authority to depart based on the reasons requested by Medina-Garcia. United States v. Linn, 362 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir.2004) (reaffirming that discretionary refusals to depart downward are unreviewable).
Citing Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), Medina-Garcia contends that the district court violated his rights to a jury trial and due process by imposing a 16-level enhancement based on a prior crime of violence, without proof to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or an admission by Medina-Garcia. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2004) (order) (observing that Blakely preserved the rule that a sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction need not be presented to a jury).
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.