Cabada-Navarrete

United States v. Cabada-Navarrete

Good Law
13 F. App'x 528
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 21, 2001No. 00-10246; D.C. No. CR-99-00035-RGSCalifornia352 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Marcial Cabada-Navarrete appeals the 60-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Cabada-Navarrete contends that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), requires a remand to the district court because a prior aggravated felony conviction should be a fact determined by a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1503 , 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001).

Cabada-Navarrete also contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise and preserve the Apprendi issue before the district court. However, given Pacheco-Zepeda , we reject Cabada-Navarrete’s contention because he has failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel from counsel’s failure to argue that the prior aggravated felony conviction should have been determined by a jury. See Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir.1989) (concluding that failure…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.