
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul OROZCO, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-10572.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 21, 2006.
    
    Filed Aug. 25, 2006.
    Ronald C. Rachow, Esq., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Scott W. Edwards, Esq., Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul Orozco appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Orozco’s contention that the district court erred in imposing the statutory mandatory minimum sentence based upon the existence of a prior drug-trafficking conviction has no merit. The fact of a prior conviction does not need to be admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt for purposes of sentencing. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting the continuing vitality of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998)).

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.
     