United States v. Diaz-Hernandez ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2007 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    6-12-2007
    USA v. Diaz-Hernandez
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 05-5245
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
    Recommended Citation
    "USA v. Diaz-Hernandez" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 959.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/959
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    Case No: 05-5245
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    CARLOS ENRIQUE DIAZ-HERNANDEZ,
    Appellant
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    District Court No.: 04-02J
    District Judge: The Honorable Kim R. Gibson
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
    June 4, 2007
    Before: SMITH, COWEN, and SILER, Circuit Judges*
    (Filed: June 12, 2007)
    OPINION
    SMITH, Circuit Judge.
    Carlos Enrique Diaz-Hernandez is a native and citizen of Mexico. He was
    convicted in Bedford County, Pennsylvania of assault and possession of a firearm. Diaz-
    *
    The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    Hernandez returned to Mexico on April 15, 2003, pursuant to an order of removal issued
    by an immigration judge in York, Pennsylvania. He understood that he could not reenter
    the United States without permission.
    Diaz-Hernandez illegally reentered the United States on May 1, 2003. On October
    25, 2003, the Pennsylvania State Police found Diaz-Hernandez in Bedford, Pennsylvania.
    Diaz-Hernandez was indicted under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
     for knowingly and unlawfully
    reentering the United States after having been removed. The District Court sentenced
    him to 46 months imprisonment.
    Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker,
    
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), Diaz-Hernandez sought a remand for resentencing. This Court
    granted the motion. The District Court imposed the same sentence. This appeal
    followed.
    The District Court exercised jurisdiction over this action under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3231
    .
    This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    Diaz-Hernandez argues that, because his prior conviction for an aggravated felony
    increased his statutory maximum penalty, his prior conviction should have been charged
    in the indictment and proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He maintains that
    failure in either respect violates his rights under the Sixth Amendment.
    Diaz-Hernandez concedes that the Supreme Court has settled this issue in
    Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
     (1998). Diaz-Hernandez
    2
    acknowledges that he pursues this appeal only to preserve this claim should the Supreme
    Court alter or overturn Almendarez-Torres. 
    523 U.S. at 243
    .
    In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court held that 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b)(2), which
    sets a higher statutory maximum penalty for violators with a prior conviction for an
    aggravated felony, is a penalty provision, not a separate offense. 
    523 U.S. at 243
    .
    Therefore, the Government is not required by the Sixth Amendment to charge and prove
    the prior conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    Id.
     Almendarez-Torres stands for the
    principle that prior convictions that increase the statutory maximum penalty for an
    offense are not elements of the offense and thus may be found by a district court by a
    preponderance of the evidence. See 
    id.
    This Court has held that Almendarez-Torres survived the Supreme Court’s
    decision in Booker, 543 U.S. at 244. See United States v. Ordaz, 
    398 F.3d 236
    , 241 (3d
    Cir. 2005). We will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-5245

Judges: Smith, Cowen, Siler

Filed Date: 6/12/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024