From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Herrera

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 18, 2006
163 F. App'x 569 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion

Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Douglas M. Fuchs, AUSA, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Monica Knox, Esq., Callie Glanton Steele, Esq., FPDCA-Federal Public Defender's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-00020-GAF.

Before: HUG, O'SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Salvador Antonio Herrera appeals his conviction by guilty plea and sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation. Herrera contends that the holding in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), that a qualifying prior conviction that increases a sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is a "sentencing factor" to be found by a judge at sentencing rather than by a jury, has been undercut by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, and that the prior-conviction enhancement provisions of § 1326(b) are no longer constitutionally permissible. This contention is foreclosed. United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that we continue to be bound by the Supreme Court's holding in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), that a district court may enhance a sentence on the basis of prior convictions, even if the fact of those convictions was not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

The conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed.

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment, which currently identifies the offense statute as "8 U.S.C. 1326(a),(b)(2),"

Page 570.

the incorrect reference to (b)(2). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

United States v. Herrera

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 18, 2006
163 F. App'x 569 (9th Cir. 2006)
Case details for

United States v. Herrera

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Salvador Antonio…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 18, 2006

Citations

163 F. App'x 569 (9th Cir. 2006)