Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04611/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04611-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wagner Barrera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4611

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WAGNER BARRERA, a/k/a Wagner Mardoqueo Babbera

Najarro, a/k/a Wagner Mardoqueo Barrera

Najarro, a/k/a Wagner M. Barrera Najarro,

a/k/a Wagner M. Barrera, a/k/a Wagner Mondogeo

Barreaa,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (5:07-cr-00003-sgw)

Submitted: December 19, 2007 Decided: January 11, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Andrea Harris, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, Research and

Writing Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Bruce

A. Pagel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4611 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/11/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Wagner Barrera pled guilty to illegal entry after being

previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2)

(2000), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000). He was sentenced to fifty-seven

months of imprisonment. His counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no

meritorious issues for appeal, but raising for the court’s

consideration whether Barrera’s constitutional rights were violated

because his sentence was increased based on a prior conviction not

alleged in the indictment. Barrera was notified of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The

Government did not file a reply brief. After reviewing the record,

we affirm.

Under § 1326(a), an alien who illegally returns to the

United States after being removed may be imprisoned for up to two

years. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). However, § 1326(b)(2) provides that,

if the alien’s removal was subsequent to an aggravated felony, he

faces a maximum prison term of twenty years. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2). Barrera argues that the district court improperly

sentenced him to a term exceeding two years under § 1326(b) because

his prior aggravated felony conviction was not charged in the

indictment. 

Barrera concedes that the Supreme Court ruled in

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), that

Appeal: 07-4611 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/11/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

§ 1326(b) is a penalty provision, not an element of the offense,

and the aggravated felony conviction need not be charged in the

indictment. However, he contends that Almendarez-Torres was called

into question by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny and should no longer

be considered binding precedent. Although Apprendi expressed some

uncertainty regarding the future vitality of Almendarez-Torres, we

have subsequently concluded that Almendarez-Torres was not

overruled by Apprendi, and remains the law. United States v.

Sterling, 283 F.3d 216, 220 (4th Cir. 2002); see also United States

v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-53 (4th Cir. 2005) (reaffirming

continuing validity of Almendarez-Torres after United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)). We therefore conclude that Barrera’s

claim is without merit.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We

therefore affirm Barrera’s conviction and sentence. This court

requires that counsel inform Barrera, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If Barrera requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Barrera. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

Appeal: 07-4611 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/11/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-4611 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/11/2008 Pg: 4 of 4