Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02602/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02602-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Luis Arnoldo Villanueva-Martinez
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2602

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Luis Arnoldo Villanueva-Martinez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2005

Filed: March 30, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Luis Arnoldo Villanueva-Martinez pled guilty to being an illegal alien found

in the United States following deportation after having been convicted of an

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

court1

 imposed a sentence of 78 months under the federal sentencing guidelines, and

Villanueva-Martinez appeals.

Appellate Case: 04-2602 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2005 Entry ID: 1885174 
-2-

Villanueva-Martinez argues that his guideline sentence violated his Sixth

Amendment rights, citing Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). He objects

to his 16 level sentencing enhancement based on his having been previously deported

after a felony drug trafficking conviction. He also contends that his guilty plea and

conviction should be vacated, arguing that his plea was neither voluntary nor

intelligent because he had been incorrectly advised that his sentence would be

controlled by the guidelines. The government responds that a sentencing

enhancement based on a defendant’s prior conviction does not have to be presented

to a jury under the Apprendi line of cases, that Villanueva-Martinez was correctly

sentenced under the guidelines, and that there was no plain error.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), the Supreme

Court held that a prior felony conviction is a sentencing factor for the court rather

than a fact issue for the jury. That principle has been reaffirmed most recently in

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005). See also, Blakely, 124 S. Ct. at

2536; Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Moreover, VillanuevaMartinez acknowledged in his plea agreement that he had been convicted of an

aggravated felony before his deportation. The sentencing enhancement applied by

the district court thus did not violate Villanueva-Martinez's rights or invalidate his

guilty plea.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2602 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2005 Entry ID: 1885174