Case ID: f-appx_221/html/0897-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Humberto DE LA SOTA-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-13886
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    March 28, 2007.
    Peter Vincent Birch, Federal Public Defender, West Palm Beach, FL, Kathleen M. Williams, Federal Public Defender, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before BIRCH, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Humberto De La Sota-Rivera appeals his 48-month sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2). Sota-Rivera argues that the enhancement of his sentence based on his previous criminal conviction violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because the predicate offense was neither charged in the indictment nor found by a jury. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We affirm.

Under current Supreme Court precedent, previous convictions can enhance a defendant’s sentence without being alleged in the indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 244-46, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 1231-32, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). That precedent remains good law. United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen, 410 F.3d 1307, 1315-16 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 457, 163 L.Ed.2d 347 (2005).

Sota-Rivera’s sentence is

AFFIRMED.