United States v. Jaimes-Bustos ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-5084
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    EZEQUIEL JAIMES-BUSTOS, a/k/a Ruben Fernandez-Salamancha,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Frank D. Whitney,
    District Judge. (3:07-cr-00089-FDW-1)
    Submitted:    December 23, 2009             Decided:   January 7, 2010
    Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles R. Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
    North Carolina; Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Without a plea agreement, Ezequiel Jaimes-Bustos pled
    guilty     to     reentering     the    United       States       after    having       been
    deported     as    an   aggravated      felon,       in    violation      of   
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a), (b)(2) (2006).              The district court sentenced him to
    forty-one months in prison.            Jaimes-Bustos appeals.
    Counsel filed an Anders ∗ brief, in which he states that
    there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but challenges the
    adequacy of the indictment in two regards.                         Jaimes-Bustos was
    advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but he
    did not file one.
    Counsel contends that Jaimes-Bustos’ conviction should
    be vacated because the indictment failed to allege an essential
    element     of    his   crime,   namely       that    he    was    an     “alien.”        By
    pleading     guilty,     Jaimes-Bustos        waived       any    challenge        to   this
    non-jurisdictional alleged defect.               Menna v. New York, 
    423 U.S. 61
    ,   62   n.2    (1975);   Tollett      v.    Henderson,         
    411 U.S. 258
    ,      267
    (1973); see United States v. Cotton, 
    535 U.S. 625
    , 630-31 (2002)
    (noting that defects in an indictment are not jurisdictional).
    In any event, this claim is without merit.                       See United States v.
    De La Pava, 
    268 F.3d 157
    , 160-62 (2d Cir. 2001) (finding that
    omission of the term “alien” did not render indictment charging
    ∗
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967).
    2
    § 1326 violation invalid; only an alien may be deported from
    United     States     and     needs        Attorney       General’s       permission       to
    reenter).
    Section 1326 provides a two-year maximum sentence for
    any alien who illegally enters the United States after having
    been deported.       
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a).                 If the alien’s removal was
    subsequent     to    a    conviction         for     an    aggravated       felony,       the
    statutory    maximum        penalty        increases      to     twenty    years.         
    Id.
    § 1326(b)(2).       Counsel claims that Jaimes-Bustos’ indictment was
    “fatally    flawed”       because     it     did    not    specify        the   aggravated
    felony upon which his sentence was enhanced under § 1326(b)(2).
    However,    the     Supreme    Court        has    held    that       § 1326(b)(2)    is    a
    “penalty    provision,”       not     an    element       of    the    offense,    and    the
    underlying aggravated felony conviction need not be specified in
    the indictment.           Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
    , 226-27 (1998); see also United States v. Cheek, 
    415 F.3d 349
    , 352 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that Almendarez-Torres was not
    overruled by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), or
    United    States     v.     Booker,    
    543 U.S. 220
        (2005)).         Thus,    we
    conclude that this argument is without merit.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.      We     therefore       affirm        Jaimes-Bustos’         conviction       and
    sentence.      This       court     requires       that    counsel        inform    Jaimes-
    3
    Bustos, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
    of   the    United   States    for   further    review.      If    Jaimes-Bustos
    requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
    such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
    this court for leave to withdraw from representation.                    Counsel’s
    motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jaimes-
    Bustos.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal      contentions   are   adequately      presented    in    the    materials
    before     the   court   and   argument     would   not    aid    the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-5084

Judges: King, Gregory, Hamilton

Filed Date: 1/7/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024