From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Lamas-Galaviz

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 20, 2003
72 F. App'x 720 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion


72 Fed.Appx. 720 (9th Cir. 2003) UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Gustavo LAMAS-GALAVIZ, Defendant--Appellant. No. 03-10119. D.C. No. CR-02-00168-ECR. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 20, 2003

Submitted August 11, 2003.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Edward C. Reed, District Judge, Presiding.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and TASHIMA, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Gustavo Lamas-Galaviz appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following his

Page 721.

guilty plea to one count of unlawful reentry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Lamas-Galaviz contends that his sentence in excess of two years is illegal and violates due process under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because at the plea hearing Lamas-Galaviz admitted deportation but not removal, which, he says, is the exclusive condition precedent for enhanced punishment under the 1996 version of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). We reject Lamas-Galaviz's contention that United States v. Lopez-Gonzalez, 183 F.3d 933, 934 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that any distinction between deportation and removal is legally insignificant for purposes of the 1996 version of § 1326), is not controlling. See also United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that Apprendi preserved the holding of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and rejecting contention that a § 1326(b)(2) enhancement requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the prior aggravated felony conviction). The district court's judgment is therefore

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Lamas-Galaviz

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 20, 2003
72 F. App'x 720 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

U.S. v. Lamas-Galaviz

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Gustavo LAMAS-GALAVIZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 20, 2003

Citations

72 F. App'x 720 (9th Cir. 2003)