On October 26, 2004, we granted appellee’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance in this appeal. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded our disposition for consideration in light of its subsequent decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Ramos-Birrueta v. United States, 543 U.S. 1183, 125 S.Ct. 1427, 161 L.Ed.2d 185 (2005) (table). We affirmed in our prior disposition the enhancement of appellant’s sentence based on a conviction that was neither pled nor proved to a jury, relying on United States v. Quintanar-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1130, 125 S.Ct. 1100, 160 L.Ed.2d 1085 (2005) (<HOLDING>), United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d
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 the same under blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531 159 led2d 403 2004 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 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 apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 did not overrule almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998