United States v. Ruiz-Gonzalez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Juan RUIZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant—Appellant
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
MEMORANDUM **
Juan Ruiz-Gonzalez challenges the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(2). Ruiz-Gonzalez contends that we violate due process when we authorize the district court, rather than a jury, to determine that Ruiz-Gonzalez was convicted of an aggravated felony prior to re-entering the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(2) (raising the maximum sentence from two years to 20 years where the re-entering alien was removed after conviction for an aggravated felony). The Supreme Court rejected this argument in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998).
*197 Ruiz-Gonzalez argues that we are not bound by Almendarez-Torres because the Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 586 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) “implicitly overruled” Almendarez-Torres . We are bound, however, by Almendarez-Torres unless and until Almendarez-Torres is expressly overruled by the Supreme Court. United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 411 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 966 , 121 S.Ct. 1503 , 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001). Ring does not purport to expressly overrule Almendarez-Torres. See 536 U.S. at -, 122 S.Ct. at 2437 n.4.
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.