Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio MELO-SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-13
Citations: 117 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 04-10246; D.C. No. CR-03-00204-1-REJ
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sergio MELO-SANTIAGO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sergio MELO-SANTIAGO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-10246.
D.C. No. CR-03-00204-1-REJ.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 13, 2004.
Robert A. Bork, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Diane L. Dragan, Las Vegas, NV, 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
Sergio Melo-Santiago appeals the sentence imposed following his jury conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), Melo-Santiago contends that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence based upon facts that were not alleged in the indictment, proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury nor admitted by the defendant. The sole basis for the sentencing enhancement was Melo-Santiago's prior drug trafficking conviction, and his contention is foreclosed by our holdings in United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414 (9th Cir.2000), and United States v. Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052, 1052-53 (9th Cir.2004).
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.