Court Opinion

ID: 3214981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-20 21:01:08.668319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:37.543940
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUN 20 2016

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-30264

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 9:15-cr-00005-DLC

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ARMANDO GOMEZ-HERNANDEZ,
a.k.a. Carlos Atondo, a.k.a. Mario Gomez,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Montana
                    Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before:        BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Armando Gomez-Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28

          *
             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).
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

      Gomez-Hernandez contends that the district court violated the Sixth

Amendment by increasing the statutory maximum sentence for his offense on the

basis of a prior felony conviction that was not admitted by him or found by a jury.

As Gomez-Hernandez concedes, this argument is foreclosed by the Supreme

Court’s holding in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See

United States v. Leyva-Martinez, 632 F.3d 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2011) (“We have

repeatedly held . . . that Almendarez-Torres is binding unless it is expressly

overruled by the Supreme Court.”).

      In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062

(9th Cir. 2000), we remand this case to the district court with instructions that it

delete from the judgment the reference to § 1326(b)(1). See United States v.

Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to

delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

      AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

                                           2                                     15-30264