Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04578/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04578-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Noel Villalta Trejo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4578

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE NOEL VILLALTA TREJO, a/k/a Elmer Rodriguez Vialta, 

a/k/a Jose Noel Villailta Trejo, a/k/a Jose Trejo, a/k/a 

Cleto Federico Trinin Hernandez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:14-cr-00061-TSE-1)

Submitted: March 3, 2015 Decided: March 10, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. 

Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Gul Raza Gharbieh, Assistant Federal 

Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. 

Boente, United States Attorney, Adam Ptashkin, Special Assistant 

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4578 Doc: 26 Filed: 03/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Noel Villalta Trejo appeals his 30-month sentence, 

imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry after 

removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012). In light of 

Trejo’s prior conviction for an aggravated felony, he was 

subject to the 20-year statutory maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b) (2012).

On appeal, Trejo claims that 8 U.S.C. “§ 1326(b) defines a 

separate, aggravated offense, and that, because [his] indictment 

did not allege a prior conviction, it charged only a violation 

of § 1326(a).” (Appellant’s Br. at 8). He therefore argues 

that his 30-month sentence exceeds the 2-year statutory maximum 

set forth in § 1326(a), in violation of “his due process, grand 

jury, and jury trial rights under the Fifth and Sixth 

Amendments.” (Id.).

This claim, as acknowledged by Trejo, is squarely 

foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998). See

United States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 124 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(“Almendarez-Torres remains good law, and we may not disregard 

it unless and until the Supreme Court holds to the contrary.”), 

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 942 (2015); United States v. Graham, 

711 F.3d 445, 455 (4th Cir.) (“[W]e are bound by AlmendarezAppeal: 14-4578 Doc: 26 Filed: 03/10/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Torres unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.”), 

cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 449 (2013). 

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately expressed in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-4578 Doc: 26 Filed: 03/10/2015 Pg: 3 of 3