Case Name: UNITED STATES, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Humberto MARTINEZ-VALDEZ, Defendant/Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-30
Citations: 220 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 05-10557
Parties: UNITED STATES, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Humberto MARTINEZ-VALDEZ, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 220
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Humberto MARTINEZ-VALDEZ, Defendant/Appellant.
No. 05-10557.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 14, 2006.
Filed Jan. 30, 2007.
Raynette M. Logan, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
Atmore L. Baggot, Esq., Atmore Baggot Attorney at Law, Apache Junction, AZ, for Defendant/Appellant.
Before: KLEINFELD and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON, District Judge.
The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The government concedes error in the district court's charging instruction on voluntariness. That error was harmless because of the overwhelming evidence against Martinez-Valdez. Martinez-Valdez's surroundings when caught and his admissions when taken into custody, as well as the geography of the border area, establish that it was "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error . did not contribute to the verdict." Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999).
There was no plain error in the sentencing enhancement because Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), vitiates Martinez-Valdez's Apprendi argument.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.