Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8628827
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Estrella-Acosta
No. 8628827 · Decided February 26, 2007
No. 8628827·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
February 26, 2007
Citation
No. 8628827
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Salvador Estrella-Aeosta appeals from his conviction and the 21-month sentence imposed for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Estrella-Aeosta first contends that the district court erred by refusing to dismiss his indictment because the indictment failed to allege an overt act that was a substantial step, an essential element of his offense of attempted entry. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 782, 788 , 166 L.Ed.2d 591 (2007). Estrella-Aeosta next contends that the district court erred when it failed to dismiss his indictment because of improper grand jury instructions. Estrella-Aeosta acknowledges that United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184, 1204-08 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), forecloses all of his grand jury challenges, except for his challenge to the instruction related to potential punishment for a crime. However, we have held that this grand jury instruction is constitutional. See United States v. Cortez-Rivera, 454 F.3d 1038, 1040-41 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, his contention is foreclosed. Finally, Estrella-Aeosta contends that the district court erred by increasing his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(2) based on a prior conviction that he did not admit, and was not found *582 beyond a reasonable doubt. He also contends that in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions, Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), has been overruled and that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Velasquez-Reyes, 427 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006) (reaffirming the validity of Almendarez-Torres and rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of § 1326(b)). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Salvador Estrella-Aeosta appeals from his conviction and the 21-month sentence imposed for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Salvador Estrella-Aeosta appeals from his conviction and the 21-month sentence imposed for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
02Estrella-Aeosta first contends that the district court erred by refusing to dismiss his indictment because the indictment failed to allege an overt act that was a substantial step, an essential element of his offense of attempted entry.
03Estrella-Aeosta next contends that the district court erred when it failed to dismiss his indictment because of improper grand jury instructions.
04Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184, 1204-08 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), forecloses all of his grand jury challenges, except for his challenge to the instruction related to potential punishment for a crime.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Salvador Estrella-Aeosta appeals from his conviction and the 21-month sentence imposed for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Estrella-Acosta in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on February 26, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8628827 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.