United States v. Jacobo Flores-Vasquez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacobo FLORES-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain (author), Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Edward Leavy
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2015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