Salamanca-Sanchez

MEMORANDUM **

Pablo Salamanca-Sanchez appeals from the District Court’s sentencing decision. He contends that mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional after United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He also maintains that he did not admit in his plea agreement that he possessed the amount of methamphetamine necessary to be subject to the mandatory minimum. We affirm because we have previously held that Booker does not invalidate federal statutes imposing a mandatory minimum sentence. We also conclude that Mr. Salamanca-Sanchez’s stipulation in his plea agreement to the amount of methamphetamine he possessed can properly be construed as an admission.

I

Mr. Salamanca-Sanchez contends that mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker . We recently held in United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir.2005) that “Booker does not bear on mandatory mínimums.” Id. at 1048 . Therefore, this argument must fail.

II

Mr. Salamanca-Sanchez also asserts that he did not admit to possessing enough methamphetamine to be subject to the mandatory minimum found in 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(A)(viii).…