
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gildardo RAMIREZ-VALERIO, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-30529.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2006.
    James M. Peters, Esq., USBO — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Samuel Richard Rubin, Esq., FDWAID — Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Boise, ID, Tracy Stabb, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gildardo Ramirez-Valerio appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Ramirez-Valerio’s contentions regarding Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), are foreclosed by Ninth Circuit case law. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that the court continues to be bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in Almendarez-Torres); see also United States v. Velasquez-Reyes, 427 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (rejecting contention that the government is required to plead prior convictions in the indictment and prove them to a jury unless the defendant admits the prior convictions); United States v. Ochoa-Gaytan, 265 F.3d 837, 845-46 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), carved out an exception for prior convictions that specifically preserved the holding of Almendarez-Torres ); United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.2001) (rejecting contention that the temporal relationship of the removal to the prior conviction is a fact beyond the scope of the prior-convictions exception); United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414-15 (9th Cir.2000) (rejecting contention that Almendarez-Torres should be “strictly limited” to its specific facts).

Finally, a review of the record convinces us that the district court imposed a reasonable sentence. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     