Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01422/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01422-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Ever Salas-Pineda
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1422

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Tony Ever Salas-Pineda, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 1, 2007

Filed: February 7, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tony Salas-Pineda (“Salas”) pled guilty to illegally re-entering the United

States after he was deported for an aggravated felony – a Minnesota drug trafficking

offense – in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court1

 imposed

a sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Salas argues the enhanced

sentencing provisions of section 1326(b) violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,

because a defendant’s sentence is enhanced based on a prior conviction, which is a

fact that must be pleaded in an indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appellate Case: 06-1422 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2007 Entry ID: 3276258
-2-

We reject Salas’s claims. Salas’s prior conviction was specifically alleged in

the indictment to which he pleaded guilty, thus eliminating any potential issue under

the Fifth Amendment. Salas also admitted in his unconditional plea agreement that

he had a prior conviction for an aggravated felony, thus satisfying any Sixth

Amendment concerns. See United States v. McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir.

2005). Moreover, as Salas concedes, even absent the specific allegation in the

indictment and the admission in the plea agreement, his argument fails under

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which remains good law.

See United States v. Levering, 431 F.3d 289, 295 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.

Ct. 2366 (2006); United States v. Raya-Ramirez, 244 F.3d 976, 977 (8th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1422 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2007 Entry ID: 3276258