Court Opinion

ID: 2781738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-02-24 22:00:58.583754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:00:16.488481
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FEB 24 2015

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-50066

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02162-GPC

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JACOBO FLORES-VASQUEZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                    Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted February 17, 2015**

Before:        O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Jacobo Flores-Vasquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

attempted reentry of a removed alien, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Flores-Vasquez contends that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment

because the fact of the prior conviction that subjected him to a higher statutory

maximum under section 1326(b) was not admitted by him or proven to a jury. The

Supreme Court rejected this argument in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523
U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998). Flores-Vasquez’s contention that Almendarez-Torres has

been overruled is incorrect. See Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1

(2013) (declining to revisit holding in Almendarez-Torres); see also United States

v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (Supreme Court precedent is

controlling until it is explicitly overruled by the Court).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                  14-50066