DocketNumber: 02-3945
Citation Numbers: 67 F. App'x 990
Filed Date: 7/8/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 02-3945 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Sandro Zamudio-Martinez, also * [UNPUBLISHED] known as Alfredo Perez * Martinez, also known as Alfred * Martinez Perez, * * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: July 2, 2003 Filed: July 8, 2003 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Sandro Zamudio-Martinez pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States following deportation, in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1326
(a). The district court1 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. sentenced Zamudio-Martinez to 57 months of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. He appeals his sentence, and we affirm. For reversal, Zamudio-Martinez first argues that the district court lacked authority to sentence him under8 U.S.C. § 1326
(b) because the indictment charged only a violation of section 1326(a). The argument is unavailing, however, because section 1326(b) does not define a crime separate from section 1326(a). See Almendarez-Torres v. United States,523 U.S. 224
, 226-27 (1998). Zamudio-Martinez also argues that the district court should not have assessed 2 criminal history points for committing the instant offense while he was serving a term of probation, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), because he never signed a probation contract and thus was not under a probation sentence at the time of his illegal reentry. We disagree. The district court did not err in rejecting Zamudio-Martinez’s legally unsupported contention that his failure to enter into a probation contract, as required by the terms of the state-court order imposing the sentence of probation, somehow negated his probationary status. See United States v. Blanton,281 F.3d 771
, 775 (8th Cir. 2002) (district court’s findings of fact reviewed for clear error; interpretation and application of Guidelines reviewed de novo). The judgment is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-