Miranda-Sanchez

MEMORANDUM **

Enrique Miranda-Sanchez (“Miranda”) appeals the revocation of his supervised release following his conviction for illegal reentry following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We affirm.

“Because supervised release is imposed as part of the sentence authorized by the fact of conviction and requires no judicial fact-finding,” the supervised release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583 , does not violate the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 04-50037, slip op. at 4569, 4573 (9th Cir. April 24, 2006). Thus, the district court’s imposition of supervised release was constitutional. Likewise, the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release was constitutional. Id. Furthermore, the revocation of Miranda’s supervised release was discretionary, and so did not violate United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Huerta-Pimental, slip op. at 4569, 4574-75.

The revocation of Miranda’s supervised release did not constitute a second prosecution for the same conduct in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. For double jeopardy purposes, punishment imposed upon revocation of supervised release is punishment for the…