Court Opinion

ID: 8602347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 23:39:34.588122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:12.235745
License: Public Domain

*567MEMORANDUM **
Appellant’s unopposed motion for an extension of time to file appellant’s response to appellee’s motion for summary affirmance is granted.
A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), remains binding on this court until the Supreme Court overrules it. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that this court remains bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in Almendarez-Torres that a district court judge may enhance a sentence on the basis of prior convictions, even if the fact of those convictions was not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt). Further, we upheld the identical condition of supervised release challenged here in United States v. Rodriguez-Rodnguez, 441 F.3d 767 (9th Cir.2006).
Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion for summary affirmance of this appeal.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.