MEMORANDUM **

We have reviewed the record and the opening brief. We conclude that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

Appellant’s argument that the fact of the temporal relationship of the removal to the prior conviction is beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s recidivism exception is foreclosed by United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2001). Further, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), remains binding.

Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment is granted.

AFFIRMED.