Perez-Espino

*661 MEMORANDUM **

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

A. Legality of Perez-Espino’s Sentence

Perez-Espino claims that Apprendi v. New Jersey 1 requires that his sentence be vacated because the indictment did not charge and the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt the fact that he was previously convicted of an “aggravated felony.” In light of our recent decision in United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 2 this claim fails.

B. Denial of Reduction for Acceptance of Responsibility

The district court found that Perez-Espino’s pre-arrest admissions to the INS agents did not demonstrate acceptance of responsibility, 3 that he never expressed remorse for his actions, and that after the jury verdict he did not admit guilt. 4 In light of our deferential review of the district court’s findings, 5 we cannot conclude there was error.

We reject Perez-Espino’s argument that the district court, in determining that Perez-Espino was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, weighed against him the fact that he objected to the admissibility of the Government’s evidence and refused to discuss his case with the probation officer. 7 We have held…