Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03474/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03474-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wilton Antonio Cerna-Salguero
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3474

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Wilton Antonio Cerna-Salguero, *

also known as Juan Antonio Reyes, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 18, 2005

Filed: March 3, 2005 (Corrected: 3/4/05)

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Wilton Antonio Cerna-Salguero pleaded guilty to one count of being an illegal

alien found in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). The district court*

 increased Cerna-Salguero’s sentence under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2), which provides a maximum sentence of twenty years if the alien had

an earlier aggravated felony conviction. 

Appellate Case: 04-3474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2005 Entry ID: 1874016 
-2-

Cerna-Salguero appeals arguing § 1326(b)(2) is a separate crime and thus he

has a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial for violating and being sentenced under

the statute. Cerna-Salguero acknowledges the Supreme Court rejected this argument

in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and declined to revisit

Almendarez-Torres in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90 (2000), which

held, “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for

a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and

proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Cerna-Salguero also acknowledges we have

continued to follow Almendarez-Torres after Apprendi. United States v. Perez-Perez,

337 F.3d 990, 997 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating plain language of Apprendi excepts the fact

of earlier convictions from its holding, and thus § 1326(b)(2) does not violate the

Sixth Amendment); United States v. Alvarez, 320 F.3d 765, 767 (8th Cir. 2002)

(stating we must follow Almendarez-Torres until overruled by the Supreme Court);

United States v. Kempis-Bonola, 287 F.3d 699, 702 (8th Cir. 2002) (having refused

to revisit Almendarez-Torres in Apprendi, “the legal landscape is clear: AlmendarezTorres has not been overruled”). Cerna-Salguero candidly acknowledges in his brief

that his claim has been rejected by the Supreme Court and “unless pending

[guidelines] cases change the law” his appeal fails. The Supreme Court has now

decided these cases, and in so doing the Court did not overrule Almendarez-Torres.

See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005). 

We thus reject Cerna-Salguero’s Sixth Amendment challenge to his sentence,

and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3474 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2005 Entry ID: 1874016