### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 15, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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- 11143 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 7 0 - CR- O RL- 3 1 K RS 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 J O S E E F R A I N I B A R R A C A N T E L L A N O , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 15, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T h i s ap p eal rai ses fo u r i ssu es, th e fi rstth ree o f w h i ch are i ssu es o f fi rst2

i mp r e s s i o n i n th i s Ci r c u i t : ( 1 ) w h e th e r , u n d e rCr a w f o r d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 1 U . S. 36 , 12 4 S . C t . 13 54 (200 4), a w arrantof depo rt at i on i s t es t i m on i al evi dence s ubj ec t to c o n f r o n ta tio n a t tr ia l; ( 2 ) w h e th e r , u n d e rC r a w f o r d , ad e f

e n d a n t h a s ar ig h t to c o n f r o n t a t i o n a ts e n t e n c i n g ; ( 3 ) w h e th e r , u n d e rSh e p a r d v . U n i t e d St a t e s , — U . S.

— , 12 5 S . C t . 12 54 (200 5), a s ent enci ng courtm ayuse docum ent s other than cou rt r e c or ds t o i de nt i f

yade f e nda ntw i th ac onvi c t i on; a nd ( 4) w he the ras e nt e nc i ng c ourtm a yus e pr i orc onvi c t i ons t o e nha nc e as e nt e nc e , w he r e the pr i orc onvi c t i ons w er e nei ther c harged i n the i nd i ctm entno r proved t o the j ury. Jose E fr ai n Ibarr a C a n te lla n o w a s c o n v ic te d o f ille g a l r e e n tryo f

ad e p o rte d a lie n , a n d b a s e d o n h is pr i orc onvi c t i on of

a n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony , he w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 100 m onths of i m pr i s onm e ntunde rs e c t i on 1326( b) ( 2) of T i t l e 8 of

the U . S . C ode . C a nt e l l a no c h a l l e n g e s b o th h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e . W e a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e de r a l gr a nd j uryc ha r ge d C a nt e l l a no w i th one c ountof i l l e ga l r e e ntryof ade port e d a l i e n. 8 U . S . C . § 1326( a ) , ( b) ( 2) . A ttr i a l , a n i m m i gr a t i on e nf or c e m e nt agentt es t i fi ed thatC ant el l ano w as a M exi can ci t i ze n w ho , af t erhavi ng been d e p o rte d f

r o m th is c o u n try , r e e n te r e d th e U n ite d S ta te s w ith o u t th e r e q u is ite perm i ss i on . T o p rove thatC ant el l ano actual l y l ef tthe coun tryw hen h e w as de port e d, the gove rnm e ntof f e r e d aw a rr a ntof

de port a t i on tha ts how e d C a nt e l l a no3

l e f tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s a tH i da l go, T e xa s , on S e pt e m be r11, 2003. T he i m m i gr a t i on enforce m entagentw ho l ai d the foun dat i on for a dm i ss i on of the w arrantadm i tt ed th a t h e d id n o t c o m p le te , s ig n , o rw itn e s s th e c o m p le tio n o rs ig n in g o f th e w a rr a n t. T he sa m e off

i ci al al so adm i tt ed he di d n otre ce i ve the w arrantun t i l he re qu es t ed C a n te lla n o ’s im m ig r a tio n r e c o r d s n e a r lyo n e y e a ra f te rth e w a rr a n t w a s c o m p le te d . C a nt e l l a no obj e c t e d t o a dm i s s i on of the w a rr a nt . C a nt e l l a no a r gue d tha tthe i m m i gr a t i on e nf

or c e m e nta ge ntw ho t e s t i f i e d a ttr i a l w a s notthe c us t odi a n of re cord because he had n o k no w l edge of the w arrantun t i l l on g aft erthe w arrantw as c o m p le te d . C a n te lla n o a ls o a r g u e d th a t h is r ig h t to c o n f r o n ta tio n u n d e rth e S ix th A m endm entw as vi ol at ed because , al tho ug h the w arranti ncl ud ed t es t i m on i al evi dence as t o an ess ent i al el em entof the cr i m e w i th w hi ch C ant el l ano w as c ha r ge d, C a nt e l l a no ha d no opportuni tyt o c r os s - e xa m i ne the pe r s on w ho w itn es se d C an tell an o leav e th e c o u n try. T h e d istrict co u rt o v erru led C an tell an o ’s o b je c tio n a n d a d m itte d th e w a rr a n t o f d e p o rta tio n . T h e ju ryc o n v ic te d C a n te lla n o . T he go vernm entprepare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rtt o w hi ch C a nt e l l a no r a i s e d s e ve r a l obj e c t i ons . C ant e l l a no obj e c t e d t o the us e of pr i or c onvi c t i ons t o e nha nc e hi s s e nt e nc e on the gr ound tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d not pr ove d the pr i orc onvi c t i ons a ttr i a l . C a nt e l l a no a l s o obj e c t e d t o us e of the pr i or c onvi c t i ons on the gr ound tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d notl i nke d C a nt e l l a no t o the4

p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . I n r e s pons e t o hi s s e c ond obj e c t i on, the gove rnm e nta tt e m pt e d t o l i nk C ant el l ano t o the pri or conv i ct i on s by i ntrodu ci ng vari ou s docum ent s, i ncl ud i ng an appl i c a t i on f

orar e pl a c e m e nta l i e n r e gi s tr a t i on c a r d orar e pl a c e m e ntgr e e n c a r d; a n appl i c a t i on f

ora n a l i e n r e gi s tr a t i on c ar d; a nd c opi e s of m ul t i pl e c onvi c t i on re cords f rom C al i forni a s t at e c ou rt s. T he go vernm ental so soug htt o i ntrodu ce a c o p yo f th e w a rr a n t o f

d e p o rta tio n f

r o m a n e a r lie rd e p o rta tio n o f C a n te lla n o ; a c opyof aw a rni ng i s s ue d t o a n a l i e n de port e d; a n abs tr a c tof aj udgm e nta nd com m i tm entfr om a L os A ng el es C ou nty s up er i or courtfor a ss aul tw i th g re at bo di l y i nj ury; a c ert i fi ed copy of the do cketfr om a L os A ng el es C ou nty m un i ci pal c ourtr e ga r di ng ac onvi c t i on f orr e port i ng ac r i m e f

r audul e nt l y ; ac e rt i f

i e d c opyof the doc ke tf

r om aL os A nge l e s m uni c i pa l c ourtr e ga r di ng ac onvi c t i on f or va nda l i s m ; aw a rr a ntof de port a t i on; a nd ac opy of af i nge rpr i ntc a r d. C a n te lla n o o b

je c te d to th is e v id e n c e o n th e g r o u n d s th a t th e d o c u m e n ts c ont a i ne d di s c r e pa nc i e s of na m e s , s i gna tur e s , and a ddr e s s e s ; the i m m i gr a t i on e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n t w h o te s tif ie d a t s e n te n c in g d id n o t k n o w w h e th e rth e d o c u m e n ts w e r e a c c u r a te ; a n d th e a g e n t d id n o t w itn e s s C a n te lla n o s ig n th e d o c u m e n ts . C a nt e l l a no a l s o obj e c t e d tha tthe doc um e nt s c ont a i ne d i na dm i s s i bl e he a r s a ya nd tha ta dm i s s i on of

the doc um e nt s w oul d vi ol a t e hi s r i ghtt o c onf r ont a t i on. T he5

di s tr i c tc ourtove rrul e d C a nt e l l a no’ s obj e c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e d hi m t o 100 m onths o f im p r is o n m e n t a n d th r e e y e a r s o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w de novo the s c ope of c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l l s , 138 F . 3d 928, 937 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . W e r e vi e w de novo the appl i c a t i on by the di s tr i c tc ourtof

l a w t o f a c t s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ove r , 199 F . 3d 1270, 1274 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e s to as e n te n c e . U ni t ed S t at es v. L yons, 40 3 F . 3d 12 48 , 12 50 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON O u r d i scu ssi o n o f th i s ap p eal i s d i v i d ed i n t o fo u r p art s. F i rst , w e ad d ress C a n te lla n o ’s a r g u m e n t th a t a d m is s io n o f th e w a rr a n t o f

d e p o rta tio n v io la te d h is r i ghtt o c onf

r ont a t i on unde rC r a w f

or d. S e c ond, w e a ddr e s s C a nt e l l a no’ s a r gum e nt th a t c o n s id e r a tio n o f

h e a r s a ye v id e n c e a t s e n te n c in g v io la te d h is r ig h t to confront at i on un der C raw ford. T hi rd, w e a dd re ss C ant el l ano’ s argum entthat S hepard res tri ct s ase nt enci ng courtfr om consi deri ng source s other than cou rt reco rd s t o i d en t i fy a d efen d an tw i th p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s. F o u rth , w e ad d ress C a n te lla n o ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e u s e o f p r io rc o n v ic tio n s th a t w e r e n e ith e rc h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t n o rp r o v e d to aju ryv io la te dh is r ig h t to aju rytr ia l u n d e rth e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. W e r e

je c t e a c h a r g u m e n t.6 A . T h e W a rr a n t o f D e p o r ta tio n W

a s N o t T e s tim o n ia l. T h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t to th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n s a y s , “I n a ll c r im in a l p r o s e c u tio n s , th e a c c u s e d s h a ll e n jo yth e r ig h t . . . to b e c o n f r o n te d w ith the w i tness es agai nsthi m . ” I n C raw ford v. W as hi ng t on , the S up re m e C ou rt e xpl a i ne d tha tthe f

oundi ng ge ne r a t i on unde r s t ood the r i ghtt o c onf r ont a t i on i n the l i gh tof the com m on -l aw tra di t i on of “ l i ve t es t i m on y i n cou rtsubj ec tt o adv er sari al t e s t i ng. ” 541 U . S . a t43, 124 S . C t . a t1359. T he c om m on- l a w tr a di t i on of confront i ng on e’ s a cc user s i n cou rtre cogn i ze d thatex part e t es t i m on y r ai se d i ss ues o f ju s tic e a n d f

a irn e s s . B e c au s e te s tim o n yis a c c u s a to rya n d d e liv e r e d in cont em pl at i on of cr i m i nal proceedi ng s, i ti s a dv er sari al . A n acc used, there fore , shou l d h ave the op po rtun i ty t o con fr on tadvers e w i tness es fa ce -t o-fa ce . S ee g e n e r a llyid . a t 4 3 - 4 5 , 1 2 4 S . C t. a t 1 3 5 9 - 1 3 6 0 . C a n te lla n o a r g u e s th a t, u n d e rth e C o n f r o n ta tio n C lau s e o f

th e S ix th A m e ndm e nta s c ons true d i n C r a w f or d, he ha d the r i ghtt o c onf r ontthe gove rnm e nt a ge ntw ho w i tne s s e d C a nt e l l a no l e a ve the c ountrya nd r e c or de d the w a rr a ntof d ep o rt at i o n ad m i tt ed o v er h i s o b j ect i o n attri al . T o reso l v e th i s i ssu e, w e m u st a d d r e s s w h e th e raw a rr a n t o f d e p o rta tio n is te s tim o n ia l o rn o n - te s tim o n ia l. W h eth er a w arran to f d ep o rt at i o n i s t est i m o n i al ev i d en ce i s a q u est i o n o f fi rst im p r e s s io n in th is C ir c u it.7

T e s t i m oni a l e vi de nc e i s nota dm i s s i bl e w i thoutc onf r ont a t i on unl e s s the t est i fi er i s u n av ai l ab l e an d th e d efen d an th as h ad an o p p o rtu n i ty fo r cro sse x a m in a tio n . I d . a t 6 8 , 1 2 4 S . C t. a t 1 3 7 4 . I n c o n tr a s t, n o n - te s tim o n ia l e v id e n c e is nots ubj e c tt o c onf

r ont a t i on. I d. A l though the C ourti n C r a w f or d de c l i ne d t o gi ve a c om prehensi ve defi ni t i on of “ t es t i m on i al ” e vi dence, i d. , no n-t es t i m on i al e vi de nc e f

a i l s t o r a i s e the s a m e c onc e rns a s t e s t i m oni a l e vi de nc e . B e c aus e nont e s t i m oni a l e vi de nc e i s notpr e pa r e d i n the s ha dow of c r i m i na l pr oc e e di ngs , i tl a c ks th e a c c u s a to ryc h a r a c te ro f te s tim o n y . N o n - te s tim o n ia l e v id e n c e is n o t in h e r e n tly a d v e r s a r ia l. W e a r e p e r s u a d e d th a t aw a rr a n t o f d e p o rta tio n d o e s n o t im p lic a te advers ar i al concerns i n the sa m e w ayor t o the sa m e degree as t es t i m on i al e vi de nc e . A w a rr a ntof de port a t i on i s r e c or de d r out i ne l ya nd noti n pr e pa r a t i on f or ac r i m i na l tr i a l . I tr e c or ds f a c t s aboutw he r e , w he n, a nd how ade port e e l e f tthe c ountry . B e c aus e aw a rr a ntof de port a t i on doe s notr a i s e the c onc e rns r e ga r di ng t e s t i m oni a l e vi de nc e s t a t e d i n C r a w f or d, w e c onc l ude tha taw a rr antof de port a t i on is n o n - te s tim o n ia l a n d th e r e f o r e is n o t s u b

je c t to c o n f

r o n ta tio n . T w o othe rc i r c ui tc ourt s ha ve r e a c he d the s a m e c onc l us i on about im m ig r a tio n r e c o r d s . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . B a h e n a - C a r d e n a s , 4 1 1 F .3 d 1 0 6 7 ( 9 th C i r. 20 05 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. R ueda-R i vera , 39 6 F . 3d 67 8 (5th C i r. 20 05 ). In8

B a he na - C a r de na s , the N i nth C i r c ui the l d tha taw a rr a ntof de port a t i on w a s nonte s tim o n ia l “b e c au s e it w a s n o t m a d e in a n tic ip a tio n o f litig a tio n , a n d b e c au s e it is s i m pl yar out i ne , obj e c t i ve , c a t a l ogi ng of a n una m bi guous f

a c tua l m a tt e r . ” 411 F . 3d a t1075. S i m i l a r l y , the F i f th C i r c ui tl i ke ne d aC e rt i f i c a t e of N one xi s t e nc e of R e c or d t o abus i ne s s r e c or d a nd he l d tha tthe r e c or d w a s by i t s na tur e nonte s tim o n ia l. R u e d a - R iv e r a , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 6 8 0 . W e r e l i e d on as i m i l a rr a t i ona l e i n a n a na l ogous pr e - C r a w f or d de c i s i on r e ga r di ng ahe a r s a yobj e c t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A gus t i no- H e rna nde z , 14 F . 3d 42 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ; a c c or d U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L ope z - M or e no, N o. 04- 30633, s l i p op.

— , at12 (5th C i r. A ug . 8, 20 05 ). In A gu st i no -H ernand ez , w e hel d that im m ig r a tio n r e c o r d s , in c lu d in g aw a rr a n t o f d e p o rta tio n , w e r e a d m is s ib le a s p u b lic re cords because they w er e “ rout i nel y and m ec hani ca l l y kept ” and “ w er e pre pare d l o n g b e f o r e th e a l l e g e d o f

f e n s e . ” A g u s t i n o - H e rn a n d e z , 1 4 F. 3 d a t4 3 . Th e s a me r e a s oni ng appl i e s i n thi s c a s e . B e c aus e the w a rr a ntof de port a t i on w a s nonte s tim o n ia l, its a d m is s io n d id n o t v io la te C an te lla n o ’s r ig h t to c o n f r o n ta tio n . B . Cr a w fo rd D o e s N o t E x te n d to N o n - c a p ita l Se n te n c in g . C ant el l ano n extar gu es thatthe adm i ss i on of hear say and do cum ent ary e vi de nc e a thi s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng t o pr ove hi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons vi ol a t e d hi s r i ght t o con fr on t at i on . W hether the ri gh tt o con fr on t at i on ext ends t o sent enci ng i s an9

is s u e o f f ir s t im p r e s s io n f

o rth is C o u rt, a lth o u g h w e h a v e r e c o g n iz e d ar ig h t to c r os s - e xa m i na t i on i n the c ont e xtof c api t a l s e nt e nc i ng. P r of f i ttv. W a i nw r i ght , 685 F . 2d 1227, 1254- 55 ( 11th C i r . 1982) . W e a l s o ha ve he l d r e c e nt l ytha tthe adm i ss i on of hear say t es t i m on y a ta s ent enci ng hear i ng “ cann otbe pl ai n err or. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . Q u a n C h au , N o . 0 5 - 1 0 6 4 0 , — F .3 d — , 2 0 0 5 W L 2 3 4 7 2 1 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . S e p . 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 ) . C a n te lla n o ’s a r g u m e n t f a ils . T he S up re m e C ou rt , i n d i st i ng ui shi ng pre- tri al ri gh t s, expl i ci t l y has sa i d that

“ the r i ghtt o c onf

r ont a t i on i s atr i a l r i ght , ” P e nns y l va ni av. R i t c hi e , 480 U . S . 39, 52 , 10 7 S . C t . 98 9, 99 9 (19 87 ), and w e r epea t edl y have c on cl ud ed thata di stri ct c ourtm a yus e r e l i abl e he a r s a ya ts e nt e nc i ng. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Z l a t ogur , 271 F . 3d 1025, 1031 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l s on, 183 F . 3d 1291, 13 01 (11th C i r. 19 99 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. C as t el l anos, 90 4 F . 2d 14 90 , 14 95 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 0 ) . N o th in g in C r a w f o r d r e q u ir e s ad if

f e r e n t r e s u lt. O u rs is te rc ir c u its h a v e r e a c h e d th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n . T h e F ir s t C ir c u it e xpl i c i t l yha s s a i d “ C r a w f or d doe s notappl yt o s e nt e nc i ng, ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M on t ei ro, 41 7 F . 3d 20 8, 21 5 (1stC i r. 20 05 ), and the S ec on d C i rc ui thas s t at ed C r a w f or d pr ovi de s no ba s i s t o r e c ons i de rS upr e m e C ourtpr e c e de nte s t abl i s hi ng the pe rm i s s i bi l i ty“ of

out - of - c ourts t a t e m e nt s a ts e nt e nc i ng. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a rt i ne z , 413 F . 3d 239, 243 ( 2d C i r . 2005) . T he F i f th, S i xth, S e ve nth, E i ghth, a nd10

T e n th C ir c u its a ls o h a v e r e c o g n iz e d th a t th e r ig h t to c o n f r o n ta tio n d o e s n o t ap p ly t o sent enci ng . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. N avarro, 16 9 F . 3d 22 8, 23 6 (5th C i r. 19 99 ); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K i rby , 418 F . 3d 621, 627- 28 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ; S z abo v. W a l l s , 313 F . 3d 39 2, 39 8 (7th C i r. 20 02 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. F l ec k, 41 3 F . 3d 88 3, 89 4 (8th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . P o w e ll, 9 7 3 F .2 d 8 8 5 , 8 9 3 ( 1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . C r a w f o r d d e a lt w ith tr ia l r ig h ts a n d w e s e e n o r e a s o n to e x te n d C r a w f o r d to s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ngs . T he r i ghtt o c onf r ont a t i on i s notas e nt e nc i ng r i ght . T he se nt enci ng courtdi d n oterr, un der C raw ford, w hen i tconsi dere d h ears ayevi dence to p r o v e C a n te lla n o ’s p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . C . She pard D oe s N

ot B arE v i de nc e at

Se nte nc i ng R egardi ng the Fac t of P r i or C o n vi ct i o n s. C ant el l ano n extar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tused pres ent ence re po rt s and fi ng erpri ntre cords t o l i nk hi m t o C al i forni a s t at e c ou rtdo cum ent s that es tab li sh ed th e p re v io u s f elo n ies u se d to en h an ce h is se n ten ce . In C an tell an o ’s w o r d s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt “w e n t b e y o n d th e f a c ts la id o u t in th e c h a r g in g d o c u m e n ts and cou rtm i nu t es . . . . [and ] used pres ent ence re po rt s t o fi nd conn ec t i on s betw ee n th o s e d o c u m e n ts a n d th e f in g e rp r in ts f

r o m th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

C o rr e c tio n s . . . to f i nd tha tM r . C a nt e l l a no w a s the pe r s on c onvi c t e d i n e a c h c a s e . ” C a nt e l l a no c ont e nds tha t“ [ t ] he U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C ourtha s j us tr e c e nt l yf ound u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l th a tme th o d o f f a c tf i n d i n g ” i n Sh e p a r d v . U n i t e d St a t e s , — U . S.11

— , 125 S . C t . 1254 ( 2005) . C a nt e l l a no a r gue s tha t , unde rS he pa r d, the s e nt e nc i ng c ourtw a s r e s tr i c t e d f

r om c ons i de r i ng the pr e s e nt e nc e r e port s a nd f i nge rpr i nt r e c o r d s b e c au s e th e yw e r e n e ith e rp r e s e n te d to aju ryn o rf o u n d b yac o u rt in p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r l y i n g th e p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s . C a n t e l l a n o ’ s a r g u m e n tf a i l s f o rtwo r e a s o n s . F i r s t , S he pa r d w a s notac ons t i tut i ona l de c i s i on. S he pa r d de c i de d a n i s s ue of st atut ory i nt erpret at i on . T he i ss ue i n S hepard w as w hether the A rm ed C ar ee r C r i m i na l A c tpe rm i tt e d as e nt e nc i ng c ourtt o c ons i de rpol i c e r e port s a nd c om pl a i nt ap p lic a tio n s to e s tab lis h th a t p r io rc o n v ic tio n s f o rb u r g la ryw e r e v io le n t f e lo n ie s . I d . a t — , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 1 2 5 7 . I n T a y lo rv . U n ite d S ta te s , 4 9 5 U .S . 5 7 5 , 1 1 0 S . C t. 21 43 (199 0), the C ou rthad h el d that“ the A C C A general l y prohi bi t s the l at ercourt f r o m d e lv in g in to p a rtic u la rf a c ts d is c lo s e d b yth e r e c o r d o f c o n v ic tio n ” to de t e rm i ne the c ha r a c t e rof apr i orc onvi c t i on f

orthe purpos e of

e nha nc i ng a se nt ence un der the A C C A . S hepard, — U . S . at— , 12 5 S . C t . at12 57 -125 8. In S hepard, the C ou rthel d thatthe rul e i n T ay l or appl i es t o con vi ct i on s on p l ea s, as w e ll a s to c o n v ic tio n s o n ju ryv e r d ic ts . I d . a t — , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 1 2 5 8 , 1 2 5 9 . S e c o n d , e v e n u n d e rC a n te lla n o ’s r e a d in g o f S h e p a r d , h is a r g u m e n t f a ils be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourta ts e nt e nc i ng m a de af i ndi ng aboutthe f

a c tof C a nt e l l a no’ s pr i orc onvi c t i ons , notthe c ha r a c t e rof hi s c onvi c t i ons . S he pa r d a nd12

T a y l orr e s tr i c tonl ythe s our c e s as e nt e nc i ng c ourtm a yc ons i de rt o de t e rm i ne the char ac t erof a pri or conv i ct i on as a vi ol entfe l on y und erthe A C C A . T he fa ctof a pri or conv i ct i on cl earl y m aybe foun d b y the di stri ctcourt . S ee A l m endarez -T orre s v. U ni t ed S t at es , 52 3 U . S . 22 4, 11 8 S . C t . 12 19 (199 8). D . T h e D is tr ic t C o u r t C o rr e c tlyE n h a n c e d Ca n te lla n o ’s Se n te n c e B a s e d o n His P ri o r C o n vi ct i o n s. C ant el l ano argues thathi s r i gh tt o tri al by j ury w as vi ol at ed w hen the di stri ct courtenhanced hi s s ent ence usi ng pri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on s thatw er e nei ther char ged i n the i nd i ctm entno r proved t o a j ury. C ant el l ano’ s argum entfa i l s. In A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 224, 118 S . C t . 1219 ( 1998) , the S upr e m e C ourt“ he l d tha tthe gove rnm e ntne e d nota l l e ge i n i t s i ndi c tm e nta nd ne e d notpr ove be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubttha tade f e nda ntha d pr i orc onvi c t i ons for adi stri ctcourtt o u se tho se conv i ct i on s f or pu rposes of enhanci ng a s ent ence . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . S h e lto n , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . C a n te lla n o e rr o n e o u s lya r g u e s th a t A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s h a s b e e n c a lle d in to q u e s tio n b yU n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . — , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , B la k e ly v . W ash i n g t o n , 5 2 4 U . S . — , 1 2 5 S . C t . 2 5 3 1 (2 0 0 4 ), an d A p p ren d i v . N ew Jersey, 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348 ( 2000) . W e ha ve r e pe a t e dl yr e j e c t e d thi s a r gum e nt a nd r e a s one d tha tthe c onc l us i on i n A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s “ w a s l e f tundi s turbe d by A pp re nd i , B l akel y, and B oo ker. ” S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d at13 29 ; ac cord U ni t ed S t at es13

v. O rdun o-M i re l es , 40 5 F . 3d 96 0, 96 2 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. B urge, 407 F . 3d 1183, 1188 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r s e i l l e , 377 F . 3d 1249, 1257, 1257 n. 14 ( 11th C i r . 2004) , c e rt . de ni e d — U . S . — , 125 S . C t . 637 (200 4). “ [A ] di stri ctcourtdo es no terr by r el yi ng on pri or conv i ct i on s t o enh ance ad e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e .” S h e lto n , 4 0 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 9 . I V . CONCL US I ON W e a f f irm b o th C a n te lla n o ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . AF F I RME D.