United States v. Banda-Anguiano

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 26 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 00-3324
v. (D.C. No. 00-CR-10051-JTM)
FRANCISCO BANDA-ANGUIANO, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore submitted without
oral argument.
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Prior to his reentry, Defendant had been deported
because of a conviction for aggravated assault. That fact is significant. Mere
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
unlawful reentry by an alien carries a two-year maximum prison term, whereas
unlawful reentry by an alien subsequent to deportation for an aggravated felony
carries a twenty-year maximum prison term. See id. Defendant argued to the
district court that his reentry sentence could not exceed two years because the
indictment never alleged that he had previously been deported subsequent to an
aggravated felony conviction. The district court rejected Defendant’s argument
and sentenced him to forty-six months in prison and two years of supervised
release based on the prior conviction. Defendant appeals, arguing that his
sentence is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
Defendant acknowledges that his position has been squarely rejected by the
Supreme Court and this court. See Aplt. Br., at 2 (citing United States v.
Martinez-Villalva, 232 F.3d 1329 (10th Cir. 2000)). In Martinez-Villalva, we
noted that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998),
held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which mandates an increased
sentence for violation of § 1326(a) if the previous deportation was
after commission of an aggravated felony, was not a separate element
of the offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt, but was, instead, merely a sentencing factor based on
recidivism. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219.
We are bound by that case to hold that the fact of defendant’s prior
felony conviction is not an element of the offense with which he was
charged by indictment, but is, instead, a sentencing factor. See id.Consequently, the indictment in this case, which did not separately
charge defendant with a prior aggravated felony conviction, did not
violate defendant’s constitutional rights. See id.Martinez-Villalva, 232 F.3d at 1332. In light of this clear adverse precedent,
-2-
Defendant raises the issue to preserve it for further review before the Supreme
Court. See Aplt. Br., at 2. Be that as it may, Martinez-Villalva nonetheless
compels us to AFFIRM the district court’s sentence in the instant case.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-