Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01747/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01747-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pablo Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1747

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Pablo Gonzalez, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2006

Filed: February 28, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pablo Gonzalez appeals the 77-month sentence the district court1

 imposed after

he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following a conviction for an

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

For reversal, Gonzalez argues that the court violated the Sixth Amendment by

imposing an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) (16-level enhancement

if defendant previously was deported after conviction for felony drug-trafficking

Appellate Case: 05-1747 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2006 Entry ID: 2014571
-2-

offense for which sentence exceeded 13 months), based on judge-found facts as to the

nature of his prior convictions. We have already rejected a similar Sixth Amendment

challenge. See United States v. Torres-Alvarado, 416 F.3d 808, 810-11 (8th Cir.

2005). 

Gonzalez also argues that the district court erred in imposing the enhancement

because in so doing it considered challenged information in the presentence report

(PSR), and the district court did not limit its inquiry to the documents listed as

permissible by the Supreme Court in Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1263

(2005) (court may not look beyond charging document, plea agreement, or guilty-plea

transcript of colloquy in which factual basis for plea was confirmed by defendant, or

to some comparable judicial record, to determine whether conviction is violent

felony). We reject these arguments as well. First, Gonzalez made blanket objections

to the PSR paragraphs detailing his drug-trafficking convictions, as part of his

argument that the section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement was not proper because the

court would have to make findings on the nature of the convictions. He never

contended that the convictions did not exist, and in fact he stipulated at sentencing that

if the probation officer were to testify, the testimony would support the factual

assertions in the PSR. See United States v. Cullen, 432 F.3d 903, 905 (8th Cir. 2006)

(district court may rely on unobjected-to facts in PSR). Second, because the district

court concluded, based on unobjected-to information in the PSR, that Gonzalez had

a drug-trafficking conviction for which he was sentenced to more than 13 months,

Gonzalez's reliance on Shepard is misplaced.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1747 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2006 Entry ID: 2014571