FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT FEB RUARY 1 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1065 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 36 6- CR-T-3 0- MAP UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us AN TO NI O C ARL OS -SA NT OS , a. k. a . A nto nio Carl os, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.
PE R CU RIA M:
De fendant-Appellant A nton io Carlos-Santos appeals his 77 -m onth sentence im pose d a ft er

he ple d gu ilty

to ill eg al r ee ntr

y of apr ev iou sly

de porte d a lie n, inDef

endant’ s sentencing hearing took place 16 da y s after Booke r wa s decide d. The district cour t 1 a p p l i e d th e S e n t e n c i n gG u i d e l i n e s a s a dv i s o r y. 2 violatio n of 8 U. S. C. § 132 6(a), (b)(2). T he district court applied a 16-level of fe nse le ve l e nhanc em en t, und er U
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A ), be ca use D ef en dant ha d be ende porte d a ft er

e ar lie r co nvi ct ion s f

or a lie n sm uggl ing and f

or c ar ry ing a co nc eal edfir earm . No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af fir m . De fendant acknowledges that he brings th is appeal onlyto preserve an argum ent that Alm endarez- Torr es v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), w as decided wr ongl y

in the ligh t of Apprendi v. N ewJersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 124 S
. Ct
. 253 1 ( 2004 ), and U nit ed S tate s v. Bo oke r, 125 S. Ct
. 738 ( 2005 ). A nd h e m ai nta ins that hi s c as e is d ist ing uis hable f ro m 1 A lm en dare z- T or

re s. F ir st, he did

not sti pul at e to h is e ar lie r co nvi ct ion s a t the gui lty ple a he ar ing : he a sse rt s th at his c onvi ct ion s ne ed ed

to be a dm itt ed

by him or pr ove d to aj ur

y be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. S ec ond, he c ont en ds tha t he did not adm it to the character ization of his earlier c onvi ction for conspiracy to transport al ie ns as a n “ al ie n s m

ug gl in g” off

en se un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A)(v ii ).O n p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w , a d e f

e n d an t mu s t s h o w “ e r

r o r ” th at i s “ p l a i n ” an d th at “ a ff e c t[s] 2 su bs tanti a l r ig hts .” Un ite d St ate s v . O lano , 113 S .Ct . 1 77 0, 17 76 (1 99 3) . It is on ly a ft e r t he se conditions ha

ve been satisfied that an appe llate cour t then may

exercise its discre tion and corr ect the err or if it seriously

aff ects the f airne ss, integr ity

or public re putation of the judicial proc eeding s. I d. 3 De fendant concedes that he did no t raise these argum ents in the dis trict
co urt: w e re vie wf

or pla in e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F
. 3d 1 291, 1298 (11th Cir.) , c ert. denied, 125 S.C t. 2935 (2005 ). 2 T he dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed no S ixth A m en dm en t e rr or . D ef en dant
correc tly observes that he did n ot adm it during the guiltyplea colloquythe ear lier
co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to t ran sp or t al ie ns an d fo r carry in g a co nc eal edfir earm . But Def endant failed to object to the fa ct statem ents in the presentence investig ation report (PSI ) about his earlier c onvi ctions. T hus, De fendant adm itted to the existence of the convictio ns und erly ing th e sentencing enhancem ent. S ee Un i t ed St at es v . S h el t o n , 4 0 0 F. 3 d1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 0 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( d ef en d an t ’s failure to obj ect at sentencing to PSI’ s fact statem ents about relevant cond uct constitu tes adm issio n to facts in PSI)
. And D efendant’ s 16-level enhancem ent was based solely on his earlier
co nvi ct ion s. I n A lm en dare z- T or re s v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 118 S
. Ct
. 121 9 ( 1998 ), the Su pr em e Co urt st at ed

that the gov er

nm en t ne ed

not a lle ge in the ind ic tm en t and
ne ed not pr ove be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t a

de fe ndant h ad

apr ior c onvi ct ion4

fo r a dis tr ic t c ourt t o us e that c onvi ct ionto en hanc e a se nte nc e. “ T his c onc lus ion
w as le ft und ist ur be d by Appr en di, Bl ak el y , and B ooke r. ” S he lto n, 400 F
. 3d at 132 9. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t vi olate D ef en dant’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts by app lying th e § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(A) en ha nc em en t b as edon hi s ea rli er co nv ic ti on s. See United States v. Ga llegos-Aguero, 409 F. 3d 12 74, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2005). Mor eo ve r, w e ha ve r ej ec te d D ef en dant’ s arg um en t tha t the e nhanc em en t
w as im pr ope r be ca

use he did

not sti pul at e that hi s c onvi ct ionf or c onsp ir ac y

to tra ns po rt a li en s was an “ al ie n s m ug gl in g” off

en se un de r § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A)(v ii ). Se e G al le gos- A gue ro , 409 F
. 3d at 12 76- 77 ( re j ec tin g arg um en t tha t S ixth A m en dm en t r equir es j ur

y , not aj udge , to de te rm ine w he the r earl ie r co nvi ct ionis
w ith in c at eg or

y of of fe nse s sp ec if

ie d in§ 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A )( vii ))
. I n any e ve nt, the dis tr ic t c ourt a lso not ed

that i t c oul d ba se the 16- le ve l e nhanc em en t on Defen da nt ’s con vi ct io ns forcarry in g a co nc eal edfir earm . See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)( 1)(A )(iii). The district court com

m itted no error, plain or otherwise, in apply ing th e 16- le ve l § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A ) en hanc em en t. AFFIRMED.