United States v. Nava-Hernandez

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 29 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 01-4136
v. (District of Utah)
(D.C. No. 00-CR-611-K)
ANDRES NAVA-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant Andres Nava-Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry
following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Violation of this
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
statute carries a maximum prison sentence of two years, but § 1326(b)(2) provides
for an enhanced prison term of up to twenty years for those who reenter the
country illegally and have a previous aggravated felony conviction. On the same
day that Nava-Hernandez was indicted for violating § 1326, the United States
filed a Notice of Sentencing Enhancement (the “Notice”). The Notice advised
Nava-Hernandez that he was subject to the enhanced penalties set out in §
1326(b) based on a prior aggravated felony conviction. In a written statement
made in advance of his guilty plea, Nava-Hernandez acknowledged that the
maximum term of imprisonment he was facing was twenty years. Furthermore, in
calculating the appropriate sentence, the Presentence Report increased Nava-
Hernandez’s offense level by sixteen points pursuant to United States Sentencing
Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on his prior aggravated felony. Nava-
Hernandez did not lodge any objections to the Presentence Report. The district
court ultimately sentenced Nava-Hernandez to a term of imprisonment of seventy
months.
On appeal, Nava-Hernandez relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000), to argue that his sentence exceeds the maximum penalty for the offense
because the fact of his prior conviction was not submitted to a jury or proved
beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, however, acknowledged that a narrow
exception to this general rule, established in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
-2-
523 U.S. 224 (1998), applies when the fact used to enhance the sentence is a prior
conviction. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. Relying on Almendarez-Torres, this court
has held that an indictment which does not contain a separate charge for prior
conviction of an aggravated felony does not violate constitutional rights. United
States v. Martinez-Villalva, 232 F.3d 1329, 1332 (10th Cir. 2000). This panel is
bound by Almendarez-Torres and therefore rejects Nava-Hernandez’s arguments.
Nava-Hernandez concedes that the relief he seeks is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres and Martinez-Villalva, but seeks to preserve his argument for
review by the Supreme Court in the event that Almendarez-Torres is overruled.
He has done so. See McKnight v. Gen. Motors Corp., 511 U.S. 659, 660 (1994).
“Nevertheless, Almendarez-Torres has not been overruled and directly controls
our decision in this case.” See United States v. Dorris, 236 F.3d 582, 587 (10th
Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the United States District Court
for the District of Utah is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-