
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent MARTINEZ-MEJIA, a/k/a Jose Martinez, Jose Vicente and Vincente Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50336.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2007.
    
    Filed April 13, 2007.
    
      Kendra S. McNally, Esq., Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Tanaka, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vincent Martinez-Mejia appeals his sentence of 70 months imposed following his guilty plea for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). We affirm.

The thrust of Martinez-Mejia’s appeal is that the district court did not consider all the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in fashioning his sentence and gave undue consideration to the Guidelines sentence. He also claims that the district court did not give sufficient consideration to, or that it misunderstood, his mitigation. We disagree. The district court stated that it considered the relevant factors under Section 3553(a), that it understood the advisory nature of the Guidelines, that it had considered Martinez-Meij a’s family situation, and that it was particularly concerned about Martinez-Meija’s past criminal history.

Martinez-Mejia’s two additional arguments for reversal are without merit.

First, Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is still binding authority in this circuit. See United States v. Zepeda-Martinez, 470 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir.2006). Second, Martinez-Mejia’s supervised release condition, requiring him to report him to a U.S. Probation Office within 72 hours of re-entry into the United States, does not violate the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 771-72 (9th Cir.2006).

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