United States v. Ceballos-Saligan

MEMORANDUM ** Cesar Ceballos-Saligan appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Ceballos-Saligan contends that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) because his prior conviction for violating California Health & Safety Code § 11351 was not categorically a conviction for a drug trafficking offense. This contention fails. See United States v. Morales-Perez, 467 F.3d 1219, 1221-23 (9th Cir.2006); see also Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Ceballos-Saligan also contends that the district court violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), by enhancing his sentence beyond two years when the fact of his prior conviction was not alleged in the indictment, admitted, or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. As Ceballos-Saligan acknowledges, this contention is *219 foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052, 1053 (9th Cir.2004). Ceballos-Saligan’s contention that Almendarez-Torres is no longer good law is, as he acknowledges, foreclosed. See United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 846-47 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.