A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f) a n d 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary30,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. ALB ERTO GO M EZ- GO M EZ, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 4115 ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 4 - CR- 3 0 DB) ( D . U t ah)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

M r . G omez - G omez pl e a de d g ui l tyon M a y13 , 20 04 , be fo r e t he U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof U t ah, on the s ol e countof r e- entryof a de por t ed al i en, w hi ch i s a vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326. T he i ndi ctm entl i s t ed vi ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 as th e o n lych arg e, w ith o u t fu rth er refere n ce . T h e statuto ry m axi m um penal t yforr eent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es aft erdepor t at i on, abs entany ot herfac t or s , i s t w o y ear s . 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) . H ow ever , t he s t atut e pr ovi des for- 2 -

e n h a n c e d p e n a ltie s if

a re e n te ri n g a lie n h a s a p ri o r c o n v ic tio n . 8 U .S .C . § 1326( b) . T he i ndi ctm entdi d notal l ege thatM r . G om ez- G om ez ha d anypr i or c o n v ic tio n s , n o r d id it c ite s p e c ific a lly to 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (b ). H ow ever , t he di s t r i ctcour t , appl y i ng the U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , gave M r . G om ez- G om ez a n enhanc ed s ent ence of 49 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entand thr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e bec aus e he ha d pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of a drugtra ffick in g o ffe n se th a t co n stitu ted a n a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y . A d e p o rte d a lien w ith an aggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i on w ho r eent er s the U ni t ed St at es i s s ubj ectt o an enhanc ed pena l t yof up t o 20 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . See 8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) ( 2) ( “[I ] n t he ca s e of a nyal i en . . . w hos e r emoval w as s ubs equentt o a convi ct i on for comm i s s i on of an a ggr avat ed fe l ony , s uch al i en s hal l be fi ned unders uch t i t l e, im p riso n e d n o t m o re th a n 2 0 y e a rs, o r b o th . . .”). T h e re fo re , the 4 9 -m o n th s ent ence di d notexce ed the maxi m um penal tyunderthatpr ovi s i on. O n appea l , M r . G om ez- G om ez a r gues thatthe enha nced pe nal typr ovi s i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) ( 2) i s an el ementof the offens e of r eentryaft erdeport at i on, and that , acc or di ngl y , pr i orconvi ct i ons tr i gger i ng t he enha nced pe nal tym us tbe al l eged i n t he i ndi ctm ent . H e cont ends thatbeca us e hi s i ndi ctm entdi d notr efe r t o anypr i orconvi ct i ons , t he governm entdi d notchar ge hi m w i th an el ementof t he cr i m e forw hi ch he w as s ent ence d. T her efor e, he ar gues , the court ’ s s ent ence exce eded the maxi m um penal t yforthe cr i m e of r eentryaft erdeport at i on, w hi ch s h o u ld h a v e b e e n tw o y e a rs .- 3 -

S e ttle d la w m a k e s it c le a r t h a t th e e n h a n c e d p e n a lty p ro v is io n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1326( b) ( 2) i s notan el ementof the offens e of r eentryaft erdeport at i on, but in s te a d is a s e n te n c in g fa c to r, a n d th e re fo re n e e d n o t b e a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t.

“ A n in d ictm e n t m u st s e t fo rth e a c h e lem e n t o f th e c rim e th a t itc h a rg e s. B u t it need nots etfor t h fac t or s r el evantonl yt o the s ent enci ng of an offende rfound gui l t yof the cha r ged cr i m e. ” A l m endar ez- T or r es v. U ni t ed St at es , 523 U . S. 224, 2 2 8 (19 9 8 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). In A lm en d are z-T o rres, the S u p rem e C o u rt i nt erpr et ed the s t atut or yl anguage ati s s ue and c oncl uded thatC ongr es s i nt ended t o m ake the enha nced pe nal t ypr ovi s i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1326( b) ( 2) as “a sen tenc ing fa ctor” rathe r th an “a sep ara te crim e,” o b serv ing that the fac tors are b a s e d o n re c id iv is m , a typ ic a l s e n te n c in g fa c to r I d . a t 2 3 0 . M r . G om ez- G om ez a r gues thatthi s hol di ng i s i n t ens i on w i th A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , i n w hi ch the Supr eme C our thel d thatm os tfac t or s tr i gger i ng a s ent ence enhanc ementbey ond t he s t atut or ym axi m um penal tym us tbe s ubm i t t ed to a ju ry a n d p ro v e d b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 , 4 9 0 (2 0 0 0 ). H ow ever , t he C our tcarved outan exc ept i on forpr i orconvi ct i ons , di s t i ngui s hi ng t hem from otherenh ancem ent fact ors on t he b asi s of t he “p rocedu ral safegu ards” i nher entt o pr ovi ng t he fa ctof a pr i orconvi ct i on. I d. at488. A s w e have not ed, re g a rd les s o f

th e d icta in A p p re n d i ca stin g d o u b t o n A lm e n d a re z -T o rre s, th e ru le rem ains fo r ch arg ed v iolati o n s o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 that p ri o r co n v ict ion s are- 4 -

m er e s ent enci ng fac t or s t hatneed notbe al l eged i n i ndi ctm ent s . U ni t ed St at es v. M arti n ez -V il lal v a, 23 2 F . 3 d 1 3 2 9 , 1 3 3 1 -32 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). M r . G om ez- G om ez c oncede s thatthe di s tr i ctcour tcorr ect l yappl i ed curr ent l a w, a n d s t a t e s t h a th e i s me r e l yp r e s e r v i n g th i s i s s u e fo rS u p r e me Co u r tr e v i e w. H e has done s o. W e conc l ude thatt he di s tr i ctcourtdi d noterrbycons i der i ng M r . G om ez- G om ez’ s pas tconvi ct i on i n appl y i ng the enha nced pe nal typr ovi s i on o f 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) . W e A F F I R M. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge