Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose OSORIO-REYES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-29
Citations: 450 F. App'x 690
Docket Number: No. 10-50449
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose OSORIO-REYES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 450
Pages: 690–690

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose OSORIO-REYES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-50449.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Sept. 29, 2011.
Michael Lewis Merriman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy Robert Garrison, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Osorio-Reyes appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to attempted entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Osorio-Reyes contends that the district court erred by applying 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) to enhance his sentence. Specifically, he argues that Al-mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which permits enhancement based on the existence of a prior felony, has been overruled by Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009), and United States v. O'Brien,—U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2169, 176 L.Ed.2d 979 (2010), so that his prior felony conviction must be either admitted or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court did not err by treating Osorio-Reyes' prior felony conviction as a sentencing enhancement and increasing his statutory maximum sentence. See United States v. Valdovinos-Mendez, 641 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.2011) (holding that Al-mendarez-Toms has not been overruled by Nijhawan and continues to constitute binding authority); United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that Almendarez-Torres is binding unless it is expressly overruled by the Supreme Court).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.