Castelo-Valencia
United States v. Castelo-Valencia
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
We have reviewed the record and the opening brief and conclude that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United, States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), remains binding on this court until the Court overrules it. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006) (rejecting claim that Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 , 125 S.Ct. 1254 , 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), and Dretke v. Haley, 541 U.S. 386 , 124 S.Ct. 1847 , 158 L.Ed.2d 659 (2004), require this court to apply Almendarez-Torres only to cases where the defendant admitted prior convictions); United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062 , 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that this court remains bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in AlmendarezTorres that a district court judge may enhance a sentence on the basis of prior convictions, even if the fact of those convictions was not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).