Bird

MEMORANDUM ***

Jason Townsend Bird (Bird) appeals his sentence of thirty-six months imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. He contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2) are unconstitutional and that the sentence is unreasonable because the district judge considered factors impermissible under § 3583(e). He also complains that the judgment erroneously stated that he admitted guilt. We affirm the sentence and remand for correction of the clerical error in the judgment.

Because we write only for the parties, we recite the facts only to the extent necessary to our decision.

1. Bird argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e) and Rule 32.1(b)(2) are unconstitutional under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because they permit the imposition of punishment for a supervised release violation without a jury verdict. We rejected this argument in United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2006), in which we held that neither Booker nor Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), are implicated in supervised release, its revocation or associated…