Naranjo-Mendoza

MEMORANDUM **

Antonio Naranjo-Mendoza appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to attempted entry after deportation and misuse of entry documents in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and 18 U.S.C. § 1546 .

Naranjo-Mendoza contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is no longer good law and that the district court violated his constitutional rights in enhancing his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b) based on a non-jury fact finding regarding his prior commission of an aggravated felony. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062 , 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that we are bound to follow Almendarez-Torres , even though it has been called into question, unless it is explicitly overruled by the Supreme Court). Similarly, there is no merit to Naranjo-Mendoza’s remaining contention that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). See United States v. Ochoa-Gaytan, 265 F.3d 837, 845-46 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that Apprendi carved out an exception for prior convictions that specifically…