Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beltran MORALES-ROBLERO, a/k/a Rutilo Bartolon-Bartolon, a/k/a Enrique Bartolon-Bartolon, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 362 F. App'x 374
Docket Number: No. 09-4506
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Beltran MORALES-ROBLERO, a/k/a Rutilo Bartolon-Bartolon, a/k/a Enrique Bartolon-Bartolon, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 374–375

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Beltran MORALES-ROBLERO, a/k/a Rutilo Bartolon-Bartolon, a/k/a Enrique Bartolon-Bartolon, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-4506.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 5, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 21, 2010.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ross H. Richardson, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Beltran Morales-Roblero pleaded guilty to reentering the United States without permission after having previously been deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Morales-Roblero to forty-six months of imprisonment and Morales-Ro-blero now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Morales-Roblero argues that § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional because these sections increase the statutory maximum sentence for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) on the basis of a defendant's prior criminal convictions. As Morales-Roblero l'aises this argument for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. Therefore, Morales-Roblero must establish (1) error (2) that was plain, and (3) affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). We find no error, however, as Morales-Roblero correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.