United States v. Joaquin Paramo-Maciel

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50550 · 2010-09-21 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joaquin PARAMO-MACIEL, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding: appeal
Trial court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge: Roger T. Benitez (district judge)
Outcome: affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area: criminal
Panel: Barry G. Silverman (author), Smith, Consuelo M. Callahan

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50550 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-03170-BEN-1 v. MEMORANDUM * JOAQUIN PARAMO-MACIEL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Joaquin Paramo-Maciel appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to attempted entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

* 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). Paramo-Maciel contends that the district court erred when it imposed a sentence in excess of the two-year statutory maximum under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He asserts that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), has been effectively overruled by Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2294 (2009). As Paramo-Maciel concedes, Almendarez-Torres has never been expressly overruled and continues to constitute binding precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1051 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 472 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.