Ortiz-Cardenas

MEMORANDUM **

Patricio Ortiz-Cardenas appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court following revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Ortiz-Cardenas contends that the supervised release revocation procedure set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b) is unconstitutional pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), in that it does not provide for a jury determination of all facts beyond a reasonable doubt necessary to justify incarceration. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that “[bjecause the revocation of supervised release and the subsequent imposition of additional imprisonment is, and always has been, fully discretionary, it is constitutional under Booker , ” and that “[i]t is clear from Booker that there is no Sixth Amendment Ap *562 prendí violation so long as the Guidelines are advisory”).

Because Ortiz-Cardenas’ challenge pursuant to Apprendi and Booker fails,…