
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50372.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
    
    Filed Aug. 31, 2009.
    Randy K. Jones, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Holly A. Sullivan, Law Office of Holly A. Sullivan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Juan Jose Jimenez, Moreno Valley, CA, pro se.
    Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Jimenez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Jimenez alleges that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 227, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), was effectively overruled or limited by the doctrine of avoidance of constitutional doubt, and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. Jimenez concedes that his contentions are foreclosed by our prior decisions, see United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (holding that the date of a prior conviction is part of the “fact” of a prior conviction for Apprendi purposes); United States v. Salazar-Lopez, 506 F.3d 748, 751 n. 3 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 995-96 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is constitutional); and that he raises them to preserve them for potential future review.

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