FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT DE CEM B ER 19, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NOT P UB L I S H] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12985 N on - A r gu m e n t C al e n d ar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -004 66 -C R -1-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A D R I A N H E RN A N D E Z - A N G U L O , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A p p ealfr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D is t r ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 19, 2005) B efo re D U B IN A , C A R N E S a n d P R Y O R , C i rcu i t J u d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntA dr i a n H e rna nde z - A ngul o, a f e de r a l pr i s one r , appe a l s hi s 41-2

m onth s e nt e nc e f

orunl a w f

ul e ntry of

a de por t e d a l i e n, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . §§ 13 26 (a ), (b)( 2). H ernand ez w as se nt ence d b as ed on an offe nse l evel thatw as in c r e a s e d b e c a u s e h e h a d p r e v io u s ly b e e n d e p o r te d b e c a u s e o f a f e lo n y a s s a u lt c onvi c t i on, a nd he c ha l l e nge s tha ti nc r e a s e . H e rna nde z c l a i m s tha t( 1) a s hi s pr i or conv i ct i on w as no tspec i fi ca l l y m ent i on ed i n the i nd i ctm ent , the di stri ctcourt vi ol at ed hi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s w hen i tenhanced hi s s ent ence ; (2) A lm en da rezT orres v . U

ni ted Stat es , 52 3 U . S . 22 4, 11 8 S . C t . 12 19 , 14 0 L . E d. 2d 35 0 (19 98 ), i s no l onge rgood l a w ; a nd ( 3) hi s s e nt e nc e vi ol a t e s the S i xth A m e ndm e nt f ol l ow i ng the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n B lake l y v . W as hi ngton , 542 U . S . 296, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 , 15 9 L . E d. 2d 40 3 (20 04 ). W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of l a w t o the f

a c t s a nd const i tut i on al chal l enges t o a se nt ence de no vo . U ni te d State s v . C ante l lano , ___ F . 3d ___, N o. 05- 11143 a t*2 ( 11th C i r . N ov. 15, 2005) . A l though B la ke ly do es n o t ap p ly to th e F e d e r a l S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , se e B la ke ly , 542 U . S . a t305 n. 9, 124 S . C t . a t2538 n. 9, the S upr e m e C our the l d i n U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , tha tthe f e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s a r e s ubj e c tt o the j ury tr i a l r e qui r e m e nt s of the S i xth A m e ndm e nt . 543 U . S . at___, 12 5 S . C t . at75 2-55 . T hu s, the B oo ke rc o u r t h e ld th a t “th e S ix th A m endm entri gh tt o tri al by j ury i s vi ol at ed w here un der a m an da tory gui del i nes3

system as e nt e nc e i s i nc r e a s e d be c a us e of a n e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on f a c t s f ound by the j ud ge thatw er e nei ther a dm i tt ed by the defendantno r f ou nd by the j ury. ” U ni ted Stat es v. R odri

gu ez , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. deni ed , 1 2 5 S. C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . A d e f e n d a n t w h o f

a ils to o b je c t to th e f

a c ts in th e P S I h a s a d m itte dth e m . U ni te d State s v . She l ton , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 0 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) . T he hol di ngs i n B lakel y/ B oo ke rdo notappl y t o the us e of pr i or c o n v ic tio n s to e n h a n c e ad e f e n d a n t's s e n te n c e . See U ni ted States v. O rdun o-Mi re l es , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 6 0 , 9 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. deni ed , 12 6 S . C t . 22 3 (20 05 ). T i t l e 8, s e c t i on 1326 s e t s the c r i m i na l pe na l t i e s f orr e m ove d a l i e ns w ho re ent erthe U ni t ed S t at es . 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6. S ec t i on 13 26 (b)( 2) st at es thatan al i en

“ w ho se re m ov al w as subsequentt o a conv i ct i on for c om m i ss i on of an aggravat ed f e l ony , s uc h a l i e n s ha l l be f i ne d unde rs uc h T i t l e , i m pr i s one d notm or e tha n 20 y e a r s , o rb o th . ” 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) . A n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y i s d e f

i n e d a s a c r i me of vi ol ence , as defi ned i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 6, for w hi ch the t erm of i m pri sonm enti s a t l ea ston e y ea r. 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43)(F ). A cr i m e of vi ol ence i s one that“ has a s a n e l e m e ntthe us e , a tt e m pt e d us e , orthr e a t e ne d us e of phy s i c a l f

or c e a ga i ns tthe pe r s on orpr ope r ty of

a nothe r . ” 18 U . S . C . § 16. I n A lm enda rez- T

orres , th e Su p r e me Co u r th e l d th a t( 1 ) 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) is a n e n h a n c e m e n t to th e c r im e d e s c r ib e d in 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) , n o t a4

se para t e c ri m e; and con se qu ent l y ( 2) nei ther the C on st i tut i on no r the st atut e r equi re the fe dera l go vernm entt o charge thata def endantw as conv i ct ed of an aggravat ed f e lo n y in th e in d ic tm e n t. A lm enda rez- T orres , 5 2 3 U . S. a t2 3 0 - 3 1 , 2 4 3 - 4 4 , 1 1 8 S. C t . a t1224- 25, 1230- 31. T hus f a r , no S upr e m e C our tde c i s i on ha s di s turbe d the c onc l us i on r e a c he d i n A lm enda rez- T orres . C ante l lano , ___ F . 3d ___, N o. 05- 11143 a t*6. A c c or di ngl y , “ adi s tr i c tc our tdoe s note rrby r e l y i ng on pr i or conv i ct i on s t o enh ance a def endant ’ s s ent ence , ” a nd tho se pri or conv i ct i on s nee d n o t b e p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. She l ton , 400 F . 3d a t1329. A f te rr e v ie w in g th e r e c o r d a n d b o th p a r tie s ’ b r ie f s , w e f in d n o r e v e r s ib le e rr or . H e rna nde z w a s s e nt e nc e d a f t e rthe S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n B oo ke rw as re l ea se d, and the re cord show s thatthe di stri ctcourtw as aw ar e the gu i del i nes w er e a dvi s ory . F ur the r , H e rna nde z a dm i tt e d the f a c tof hi s a s s a ul tc onvi c t i on dur i ng the pl e a c ol l oquy , a nd di d notobj e c tt o i t s de s c r i pt i on i n the P S I . T hus , e ve n i f the hol di ngs i n B lakel

y/ B oo ke rdi d app l y t o the use of pri or conv i ct i on s t o enh ance a defe nd ant ’ s s ent ence , there w ou l d b e no err or as H ernand ez adm i tt ed thathe had b een co n v i ct ed o f a cri m e, an el em en to f w h i ch w as th e u se o f fo rce ag ai n st a n o th e r . She l ton , 400 F . 3d a t1330, 18 U . S . C . § 16. H ow e ve r , a s w e ha ve r e p e a te d ly h e ld th a t A lm enda rez- T orres r e m a i ns good l a w , the gove rnm e ntw a s not r e q u ir e d to a lle g e th a t H e rn a n d e z h a d b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y in5

o r d e rto in c r e a s e h is s e n te n c e . See C ante l lano , ___ F . 3d ___, N o. 05- 11143 a t*5- 6 . M o r e o v e r , th e in d ic tm e n t d id a lle g e th a t H e rn a n d e z h a d v io la te d 8 U .S .C . § 1326( b) ( 2) , s o he ha d not i c e of the i nc r e a s e d s e nt e nc e . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d not e rrin r e ly in g o n p r io rc o n v ic tio n s to e n h a n c e H e rn a n d e z ’s s e n te n c e . See She l ton , 4 0 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 9 . F o rth e ab o v e - s ta te d r e a s o n s , w e a f f irm H e rn a n d e z ’s s e n te n c e . AF F I RME D.