United States v. Villegas-Cavada

MEMORANDUM ** Jorge Villegas-Cavada appeals from the 51-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. Villegas-Cavada contends that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence. Specifically, he asserts that his 2004 removal, which was executed pursuant to a reinstated removal order entered by an immigration official, was unlawful and cannot satisfy the removal requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1826 (b) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz-Luevano, 494 F.3d 1159, 1162-63 , No. 05-50129, 2007 WL 2044256, *2-3 (9th Cir. July 18, 2007) (per curiam). Villegas-Cavada contends that pursuant to Dretke v. Haley, 541 U.S. 386 , 124 S.Ct. 1847 , 158 L.Ed.2d 659 (2004), and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 , 125 S.Ct. 1254 , 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), the avoidance of constitutional doubt doctrine requires the Court to construe 8 U.S.C. § 1326 such that a two-year statutory maximum applies to his offense, and to reject the holding of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). As Ville-gas-Cavada concedes, this contention is *570 foreclosed. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006); see also 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.