Summary
holding that there was no substantial burden because defendants gave the inmate two alternatives—eating the nutritionally adequate meat-substitute meals or finding an outside organization to provide halal meat
Summary of this case from United States v. EpsteinOpinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Alessandra P. Serano, Esq., USSD--Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-00767-WQH.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
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.
J. Guadalupe Torres-Vasquez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Torres-Vasquez contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by enhancing his sentence based on a prior conviction not admitted or found by a jury. He contends that this court should hold that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) should be limited to situations where the defendant admits the prior conviction and subsequent deportation during a plea colloquy and that this court's case law has been effectively overruled by Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205, (2005), and other recent Supreme Court decisions. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1080 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that we are bound to follow Almendarez-Torres even though it has been called into question, unless it is explicitly overruled by the Supreme Court).
AFFIRMED.