Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David GONZALEZ-TADEO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-04
Citations: 143 F. App'x 56
Docket Number: No. 04-30310
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David GONZALEZ-TADEO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 143
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David GONZALEZ-TADEO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-30310.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
Michelle R. Mallard, United States Attorney, Pocatello, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven V. Riehert, Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington and Idaho, Pocatello, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David Gonzalez-Tadeo appeals his 37-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty to unlawful re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
Gonzalez-Tadeo contends that his prior conviction under Idaho's statute for battery with intent to commit a serious felony is not a categorical crime of violence, and the enhancement violated Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We reject this contention. See United States v. Smith, 390 F.3d 661, 666-67 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that a modified categorical approach does not permit inquiry into the underlying facts of conviction and that Apprendi is not violated in such prior conviction determinations); see also United States v. Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052, 1053 (9th Cir.2004) (order).
Because appellant was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, we remand the sentence for further proceedings consistent with Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1084-85. See United States v. Hermosa-Garcia, 413 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.2005).
SENTENCE REMANDED.
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.
. Appellant's request for oral argument is denied.