
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando GOMEZ-HERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Carlos Atondo, a.k.a. Mario Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30264
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 20, 2016
    Zeno Benjamin Baucus, Leif Johnson, Office of the US Attorneys, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula), Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Armando Gomez-Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Gomez-Hernandez contends that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment by increasing the statutory maximum sentence for his offense on the basis of a prior felony conviction that was not admitted by him or found by a jury. As Gomez-Hernandez concedes, this argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s holding in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See United States v. Leyva-Martinez, 632 F.3d 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2011) (“We have repeatedly held ... that Al-mendarez-Torres is binding unless it is expressly overruled by the Supreme Court.”).

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000), we remand this case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the reference to § 1326(b)(1). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     