FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MARCH 30, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15344 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 1 2 2 - CR - J - 2 5 - TE M 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 V I C E N T E M A L D O N A D O - A S E N C I O , a .k .a . F e lix A n to n io P o s o , a .k .a . E d w in M a ld o n a d o - P o s o , D e f e n d an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 30, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an dC A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

V i ncent e M al do nado -A se nci o app ea l s the 70 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l typl e at o unl aw f ul l ye nt e r i ng the U ni t e d S t a t e s , 8 U . S . C . § 1327. U nde rU . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) , ade f e ndant ’ s of

f e ns e l e ve l i s e nhanc e d 16 l e ve l s i f he w a s pr e vi ous l yde port e d a f t e rc onvi c t i on f

oraf e l onydrug tr a f

f i c ki ng o f f e n s e f o rw h ic h as e n te n c e o f

m o r e th an 1 3 m o n th s w a s im p o s e d . T he § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) e nhanc e m e ntw a s appl i e d i n thi s c a s e . M a l dona doA s e nc i o c ont e nds tha ti ts houl d notha ve be e n be c aus e , i n hi s vi e w , apr i or a g g r a v a te df

e lo n yc o n v ic tio n is an e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 2 ( B ) ( 2 ) . F o rth a t r e a s o n , h e s ay s , th e s e n te n c e im p o s e du n c o n s titu tio n a lly e x c e e d s th e s ta tu to rym a x im u m f o rth e o f f e n s e b a s e do n th e f

a c ts a d m itte db yh im o rc h ar g e din th e in d ic tm e n t. M al do nado -A se nci o’ s posi t i on i s pre clud ed by A l m endarez -T orre s v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 224, 247, 118 S . C t . 1219, 1233, 140 L . E . 2d 350 ( 1999) , and our m any dec i si on s att es t i ng t o thatdeci si on ’ s c on t i nu i ng val i di ty and appl yi ng i t . S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r e e r , 2006 W L 435662, *5- 6, ___ F . 3d ___, ___ ( 11th C i r . F e b. 24 , 20 06 ) ( “ A s w e have s ai d sever alt i m es , un l es s and un t i l the S up re m e C ou rt spec i fi ca l l y overrul es A l m endarez -T orre s, w e w i l l cont i nu e t o fol l ow i t . ”) ; U ni t ed S t a t e s v. C a m a c ho- I bar que n, 410 F . 3d 1307, 1316 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( “ [ T ] he S up r e m e C o u rth a s n o te x p l i c i t l yo v e rru l e dAl m e n d ar e z - T o rr e s . As ar e s u l t , we3

m us tf ol l ow A l m e ndar e z - T orr e s . ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ur ge , 407 F . 3d 1183, 1188 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 551 ( 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O r duno- M i r e l e s , 405 F . 3d 960, 962 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 223 ( 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M ar s e i l l e , 377 F . 3d 1249, 1257- 58 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G ua da m uz - S ol i s , 232 F . 3d 1 3 6 3 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ A l me n d ar e z - To rr e s r e ma i n s th e l aw u n t i l th e Sup r e me C ou rtdet erm i nes thatA l m endarez -T orre s i s notcontrol l i ng prec edent . ”) ; U ni t ed S t a t e s v. M i l e s , 290 F . 3d 1341, 1348 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . T he f a c t s of thi s c a s e ar e not m a t e r i a l l ydi s t i ngui s habl e f r om the f a c t s of thos e c a s e s . A pr i orc onvi c t i on i s not an e l e m e ntof

the of f e ns e unde r8 U . S . C . § 1326( b) ( 2) , r e gar dl e s s of w he the rthe d e f e n d an t a d m its to it. A F F I R M E D .