Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnoldo RIOS-BARBOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-18
Citations: 58 F. App'x 746
Docket Number: No. 02-10377; D.C. No. CR-02-000002-DWH
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Arnoldo RIOS-BARBOZA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 58
Pages: 746–747

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Arnoldo RIOS-BARBOZA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 02-10377.
D.C. No. CR-02-000002-DWH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2003.
Decided March 18, 2003.
Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Amoldo Rios-Barboza appeals his conviction by guilty plea and sentence for unlawful reentry by a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rios-Barboza contends that his sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U. S.C. § 1326(a) violates the due process requirement articulated in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), in that elements necessary to impose the enhanced sentence — the fact that an alien has been removed and suffered an aggravated felony before removal — were neither pled in the indictment nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Acknowledging that this court has rejected his argument, see United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2001) (rejecting contention that Apprendi's recidivism exception is somehow inapplicable to an aggravated felony enhancement under § 1326 because removal must have been subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction), Rios-Barboza states that he raises the issue in order to preserve it in the event the Supreme Court overrules contrary authority-
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.