United States v. Ademir Hernandez-Arciga

466 F. App'x 576

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ademir Hernandez-Arciga was convicted of federal drug-related offenses, and he timely appeals his 300-month sentence on the ground that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by a sentence enhancement for a prior conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11352(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.

Hernandez-Arciga contends that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and its progeny require a jury to find that his prior conviction constituted a “felony drug offense” pursuant to the enhancement statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 (9th Cir.2005).

To the extent Hernandez-Arciga argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that his prior conviction constituted a felony drug offense under the enhancement statute, this argument also fails. We review de novo a district court’s conclusion that a prior conviction qualifies for a sentencing enhancement. United States v. Almazanr-Becerra, 537 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.2008). The district court had sufficient documentation to establish that Hernandez-Arciga’s prior conviction was a felony drug offense. See Chuen Piu Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 878-79, 2011 WL 6061513, at *4-5 (9th Cir.2011); United States v. Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 699, 701-02 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

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