Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): CURIAM: Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Antonio Mijares-Andrade raises an admittedly foreclosed argument pursuant to Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (<HOLDING>), as well as an argument pursuant to Blakely v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 usc  1326b2 and not a separate criminal offense (B) holding that where a statute provides for an enhanced penalty based on a defendants prior conviction the fact of conviction is a sentencing factor to be determined by the court rather than a jury (C) holding that in the conviction and sentencing for criminal offenses committed in the course of one criminal episode it is the intent of the legislature that there be a separate conviction and sentence for each criminal offense unless one of the offenses is a degree of the other a necessarily included lesser offense subsumed in the other or both offenses are identical (D) holding that age factor in sexual assault statute pertains only to sentencing and is not an element of the offense (E) holding that prior final conviction is separate from conviction on which defendant faces sentencing if defendant had a meaningful opportunity to refrain from criminal activity and instead engaged in criminality anew
Output (English): holding that in the conviction and sentencing for criminal offenses committed in the course of one criminal episode it is the intent of the legislature that there be a separate conviction and sentence for each criminal offense unless one of the offenses is a degree of the other a necessarily included lesser offense subsumed in the other or both offenses are identical