MEMORANDUM **

We have reviewed the record, the opening brief and the response to the government’s motion for summary affirmance and 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). We have rejected the contention 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. See United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that this court remains bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in Almendarez-Torres that a district court judge may enhance a sentence on the basis of prior convictions, even if the fact of those convictions was not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

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

AFFIRMED.