From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Carranza-Moreno

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 19, 2007
235 F. App'x 441 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-10016.

Submitted July 9, 2007.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed July 19, 2007.

George Ferko, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. Deconcini, U.S. Court-house, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason M. Hannan, Esq., Federal Public Defender's Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Frank R. Zapata, U.S. District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-00934-FRZ.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Baltazar Carranza-Moreno appeals from his sentence imposed following his conviction for unlawful reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Carranza-Moreno contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level sentencing enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1) for a prior drug trafficking conviction under California Health Safety Code, § 11351.5. As Carranza-Moreno acknowledges in his reply brief, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Morales-Perez, 467 F.3d 1219, 1223 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a conviction under California Health Safety Code § 11351.5 categorically qualifies as a drug trafficking offense under the Guidelines).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Carranza-Moreno

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 19, 2007
235 F. App'x 441 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

U.S. v. Carranza-Moreno

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Baltazar CARRANZA-MORENO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 19, 2007

Citations

235 F. App'x 441 (9th Cir. 2007)