Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03003/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hector Salmeron
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3003

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Hector Salmeron, also known as Hector *

Vilatoro, also known as Hector *

Salmeron Villatoro, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Hector Villatoro Salmeron, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 16, 2006

Filed: June 16, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Hector Salmeron appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after deportation for an

aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), and 6 U.S.C.

Appellate Case: 05-3003 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057315
-2-

§§ 202(3)-(4) and 557. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

At the plea hearing, Salmeron was at first hesitant to plead guilty, claiming he

did not know what the charge was. He later stated that he would plead guilty to

reentering the United States without lawful consent after having been deported, but

expressed concern that the indictment took into account his past aggravated felony,

for which he had already been punished. Ultimately, Salmeron stated that he would

plead guilty to reentry, and the district court accepted his plea. With respect to the

advisory Sentencing Guidelines, Salmeron’s prior conviction for felony aggravated

assault resulted in both an offense-level enhancement and a higher criminal history

category. After considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court

sentenced Salmeron to 30 months in prison. 

The Anders brief suggests that using Salmeron’s prior conviction to increase

both his offense level and his criminal history category is impermissible doublecounting; and that enhancing Salmeron’s sentence because of the prior conviction (for

which he has already been punished) violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. This

circuit’s precedent forecloses both contentions. See United States v. Sebastian, 436

F.3d 913, 917 (8th Cir. 2006) (double-counting); United States v. Thomas, 930 F.2d

12, 14 (8th Cir. 1991) (double jeopardy).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we conclude that Salmeron demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the

charge to make a valid plea. The record indicates that Salmeron’s hesitancy to plead

guilty was based upon his opposition to the increased penalties triggered by his past

aggravated felony conviction, but he clearly stated that he was pleading guilty to

entering the United States illegally after being deported, and he did not deny the prior

conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (any alien who has been deported and thereafter

is found in the United States without the Attorney General’s express consent to

Appellate Case: 05-3003 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057315
-3-

reapplication for admission shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than

2 years or both); § 1326(b) (in case of illegal reentry, alien whose removal was

subsequent to conviction for aggravated felony shall be fined under Title 18,

imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both); United States v. Perez, 270 F.3d 737,

739-40 (8th Cir. 2001) (plea of guilty is constitutionally valid only if it is made

voluntarily and intelligently; plea is not made intelligently where defendant is not

given notice of true nature of charge; district court must inform defendant of, and

determine he understands, nature of charge), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 945 (2002). 

We find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3003 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057315