United States v. Rodriguez-Venegas

275 F. App'x 590

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Footnotes

•

**

Rodriguez-Venegas’ argument challenging continued applicability of Almendarez-Torres v. United States1 to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is foreclosed by United States v. Rodnguez-Lara² and subsequent authority.

Rodriguez-Venegas’ double counting argument addressed to § 2L 1.2(b) of the guidelines is foreclosed by United States v. Luna-Herrera3 and United States v. Blanco-Gallegos.⁴ Though the significance of the guidelines calculation has changed since then because of United States v. Booker5 and United States v. Carty,⁶ the double counting issue regarding the guidelines calculation under § 2L1.2 has not.

AFFIRMED.

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

1

. 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350(1998).

2

. 421 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2005).

3

. 149 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 1998).

4

. 188 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999).

5

. 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

6

. 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.2008).