Court Opinion

ID: 4147625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-22 21:01:14.37922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:27.929734
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       FEB 22 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 15-50527

                  Plaintiff-Appellee,            D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01494-LAB

   v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
 JUAN LEON-CORDOVA,

                  Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                     Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before:       GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

        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.

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
        **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      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 (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 (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,

133 S. Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1 (2013) (declining to revisit Almendarez-Torres).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                   15-50527