Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan LEON-CORDOVA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-22
Citations: 677 F. App'x 431
Docket Number: No. 15-50527
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan LEON-CORDOVA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 431–432

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan LEON-CORDOVA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50527
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 22, 2017
Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, P. Kevin Mokhtari, Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Gene Vorobyov, Attorney, Law Office of Gene Vorobyov, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Juan Leon-Cordova appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence following his jury-trial conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Leon-Cordova contends that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence under section § 1326(b). Specifically, he argues that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which permits an enhancement based on the existence of a prior felony, is invalid under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As Leon-Cordova acknowledges, this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 2000) (Apprendi "unmistakably carved out an exception for 'prior convictions' that specifically preserved the holding of Almendarez-Torres"); see also Alleyne v. United States, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (declining to revisit Almendarez-Torres).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.