that is, a conscious desire, to reenter the United States on August 8, 2006 without the express consent of the Secretary of the Depa ndant’s conviction for lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14, in violation of California Penal Code § 288, is a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). United States v. Medina-Maella, 351 F.3d 944 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.1999). Therefore, the court properly applied a 16-level upward adjustment. 3. Defendant concedes that his argument, preserved for the sake of potential Supreme Court review, that his prior conviction had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt has been rejected numerous times by this court. See, e.g., United States v. Velasquez-Reyes, 427 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 in which supreme court held it unnecessary to prove prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt is narrow exception to apprendi holding that blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531159 led2d 403 2004 did not overrule almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 remains good law and rejecting the contention that prior convictions must be admitted by the defendant or found by the jury holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court holding that the supreme courts holding in almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 that the government need not allege in its indictment and need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions for a district court to use those convictions for purposes of enhancing a sentence remains binding precedent