Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Ronald S.W. Lew, J., of illegal reentry after deportation. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that Apprendi did not preclude use of defendant's prior aggravated felony convictions to enhance his sentence.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding.
Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ramiro Juarez-Tafoya appeals his conviction and 53-month sentence imposed
Page 600.
following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Juarez-Tafoya's sole contention is that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) limits his sentence to the two year maximum of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), because his prior aggravated felony convictions were neither charged and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor expressly admitted.
Initially, counsel for Juarez-Tafoya filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there were no arguable issues for review and moving to withdraw as counsel of record. Juarez-Tafoya filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which is an issue we do not ordinarily address on direct appeal. United States v. Hoslett, 998 F.2d 648, 660 (9th Cir.1993) (deferring the issue until the filing of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion). On defense motion, the Anders brief was stricken, and a brief raising Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) was substituted. Apprendi is therefore the only claim at issue on appeal, and we do not address the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.
As defendant acknowledges, we have previously rejected this contention in United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 413-15 (9th Cir.2000), amended (Feb. 8, 2001). That decision controls here.
AFFIRMED.