### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A ugus t 30, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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- 10109 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 6 0 - CR- J - 1 6 - M CR 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 G U I L L E R M O R O D R I G U E Z - B E N A V I D E S , a .k .a . G u ille rm o B . R o d r ig u e z , 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

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 30, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , 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: G u ille rm o R o d r ig u e z - B e n a v id e s ( “R o d r ig u e z ” ) ap p e a ls h is 4 6 - m o n th2

s e nt e nc e f

ori l l e ga l r e e ntry w i thoutpe rm i s s i on a f t e rde por t a t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . R odr i gue z ’ s f

i r s ta r gum e nton appe a l i s tha the pl e d gui l ty t o the c r i m e of i l l e g a l r e e n try u n d e r8 U. S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) , wh i c h c a rr i e s am a x i m u m s e n t e n c e o f two ye ar s, bu tw as se nt ence d for the cr i m e of r ee ntryaf t erdepo rt at i on fol l ow i ng an ag g rav at ed fel o n y co n v i ct i o n u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (b )(2 ), w h i ch carri es a m axi m um se nt ence of tw enty y ears . R od ri gu ez cont ends that§ 1 32 6(b)(2), autho ri zi ng a pri son t erm of up t o tw enty y ears , defi nes ase para t e c ri m e and no tan en h an cem en tfo r cri m es co m m i tt ed p u rsu an tt o § 1 3 2 6 (a). T h erefo re, b ecau se R odr i gue z w a s c onvi c t e d unde r§ 1326( a ) , he purpor t s tha thi s s e nt e nc e c a nnot e x c e e d tw o y e a r s . R o d r ig u e z c o n c e d e s th a t A lm enda rez- T orres v . U

ni ted Stat es , 52 3 U . S . 22 4, 24 7, 11 8 S . C t . 12 19 , 12 33 (199 8), a c as e w hi ch address ed thi s e xact is s u e , h e ld th a t a n in d ic tm e n t c h a r g in g ad e f e n d a n t w ith av io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) n e e d n o t a lle g e ad e f e n d a n t’s p r io ra g g r a v a te d f e lo n y c o n v ic tio n to e n h a n c e as e n te n c e b a s e d o n th a t a g g r a v a te d f e lo n y p u r s u a n t to § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) . H ow ever , R od ri gu ez ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b ec ause App re nd iv. N ew J e rs e y, 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348 ( 2000) , a nd i t s pr oge ny in d ic a te th a t a m aj ori ty of the S up re m e C ou rtno l on ger s up po rt s the ho l di ng of A lm en da rezT orres .3

Ne x t , R o d r i g u e z a r g u e s th a tb e c au s e h i s o f f e n s e wa s c o m m i tt e d i n 2 0 0 2 , two y e a r s be f or e C ongr e s s a m e nde d 42 U . S . C . § 14135at o r e qui r e a l l f e l ons t o pr ovi de a D N A sa m pl e, the appl i ca t i on of § 1 41 35 a t o h i s c as e w ou l d h ave a n im p e rm is s ib le r e tr o a c tiv e e f f e c t. F i na l l y , R odr i gue z r a i s e s aF our th A m e ndm e ntc ha l l e nge t o § 14135a , but c onc e de s on appe a l tha tw e uphe l d a n “ a l m os ti de nt i c a l ” s t a t e D N A pr of i l i ng s t a tut e a ga i ns taF our th A m e ndm e ntc ha l l e nge i n P a d g e tt v . D o n a ld , 401 F . 3d 12 73 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), and thatthere i s no m eani ng ful di st i nct i on betw ee n that s ta tu te a n d th e f

e d e r a l s ta tu te in q u e s tio n h e r e . I . F i rs t , R od ri gu ez cl ai m s thathe pl ed gu i l ty t o the cr i m e of i l l egal re entry un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) , w hi ch ca rr i es a m axi m um se nt ence of tw o years , bu tw as s e nt e nc e d f

orthe c r i m e of

r e e ntry a f

t e rde por t a t i on f

ol l ow i ng a n a ggr a va t e d f e l ony c onvi c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1326( b) ( 2) , w hi c h c a rr i e s am a xi m um s e nt e nc e of tw e nty y e a r s . R odr i gue z c ont e nds tha t§ 1326( b) ( 2) , author i z i ng apr i s on t e rm of up t o tw enty y ea rs , defi nes ase para t e c ri m e and no tan enhancem entfor c ri m es com m i tt ed pu rs uantt o § 13 26 (a ). T here fore , because R od ri gu ez w as conv i ct ed u n d er § 1 3 2 6 (a), h e p u rp o rt s th ath i s sen t en ce can n o tex ceed tw o years. T he S upr e m e C our ta ddr e s s e d thi s i s s ue i n A lm enda rez- T orres , 52 3 U . S . at4

2 2 6 , 1 1 8 S . C t . at1 2 2 2 . T h ere, th e S u p rem e C o u rth el d th at§ 1 3 2 6 (b )(2 ) “ i s a p en alty p ro v isio n , w h ich sim p ly au th o rize s a co u rt to in cr ea se th e s en ten ce . . . [i] t do es no tdefi ne a s epar at e c ri m e. ” Id . at22 6, 11 8 S . C t . at12 22 . T o d at e, A lm enda rez- T

orres re m ai ns go od l aw . T here fore , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ct courtdi d n oterr i n enh anci ng R od ri gu ez ’ s s ent ence un der § 13 26 (b)( 2). T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t d e c lin e d to r e v is it A lm enda rez- T orres i n Appr e ndi , hol di ng tha t , “ [ o] the rtha n the f a c tof apr i orc onvi c t i on, a ny f a c ttha ti nc r e a s e s the p e n a lty f o rac r im e b e y o n d th e p r e s c r ib e d s ta tu to ry m a x im u m m u s t b e s u b m itte d to a j ury, and p robed b ey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” Appr e ndi , 530 U . S . a t489- 90, 120 S . C t . a t2362- 63. R e c e nt l y , i n B oo ke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738, 756, the S upr e m e C our tr e a f

f i rm e d Ap p r e n d i a n d le f

t u n d is tu rb e d its h o ld in g in [A lm enda rez- T

orres v . U

ni ted Stat es , 523 U . S . 224, 227, 118 S . C t . 1219, 1233 (1 9 9 8 )] , th atreci d i v i sm i s not as e pa r a t e e l e m e ntof

a n of f e ns e tha tthe gove rnm e nt is r e q u ir e d to p r o v e b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t.” U ni ted Stat es v. O rdun o-Mi re les , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 6 0 , 9 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W hi l e r e c e ntde c i s i ons , i nc l udi ng Sh epard v. U ni ted Stat es , 544 U . S . ____, 125 S . C t . 1254 ( 2005) , m a y a r guabl y c a s tdoubton the f utur e pr os pe c t s of A lm enda rez- T

orres , the S upr e m e C our tha s note xpl i c i t l y ove rrul e d A lm en da rezT orres , a n d , a s ar e s u l t , we m u s tf o l l o w A lm enda rez- T

orres . See U

ni ted Stat es v.5

C am acho -I

ba rquen , 41 0 F . 3d 13 07 , 13 16 n. 3 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). F urther, R od ri gu ez d o e s n o ts u c c e s s f

u l l y d i s t i n g u i s h h i s c a s e f r o m A lm enda rez- T

orres . T he fa ctthat the de f e nda nti n A lm enda rez- T orres a d m itte d th a t h e w a s d e p o r te d d u e to c o n v ic tio n s f

o rth r e e a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n ie s , a s o p p o s e d to R o d r ig u e z ’s a d m is s io n to on l y one previ ou s s t at e c on vi ct i on for acr i m e thatal l egedl y w as an aggravat ed f e l o n y d o e s n o ta d e q u a t e l y d i s t i n g u i s h th e i n s t a n tc a s e f r o m A lm enda rez- T

orres . B ec ause A lm enda rez- T

orres re m ai ns control l i ng prec edent , the di stri ctcourt di d note rri n e nha nc i ng R odr i gue z ’ s s e nt e nc e unde r§ 1326( b) ( 2) . U pon r e vi e w of th e r e c o r d a n d c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e 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 o ra s to thi s i ss ue. II . R o d r i g u e z n e x ta r g u e s th a tb e c au s e h i s o f f e n s e wa s c o m m i tt e d i n 2 0 0 2 , two y e a r s be f or e C ongr e s s a m e nde d 42 U . S . C . § 14135at o r e qui r e a l l f e l ons t o pr ovi de D N A s a m pl e s t o the B ur e au of P r i s ons ort o the pr oba t i on of f i c e , the appl i c a t i on of § 14135at o hi s c a s e ha d a n i m pe rm i s s i bl e r e tr oa c t i ve e f f e c t . R odr i gue z c ont e nds th a t th e D N A s a m p lin g r e q u ir e m e n t im p o s e s an e w d u ty o ro b lig a tio n o n h im w h ic h c a rr ie s s e r io u s c o n s e q u e n c e s . Wh e n ad e f

e n d a n tf a i l s t o r a i s e ac r i m i n a l c l a i m i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we r e v ie w f o rp la in e rr o r . Se e U

ni te d State s v . O lano , 5 0 7 U . S. 7 2 5 , 7 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 1 3 S.6

C t . 17 70 , 17 76 (199 3). W e m aycorr ec tan error und erthe pl ai n err or st andard w here (1) a n err or occurre d, (2) the error w as pl ai n, (3) the error a ff ec t s s ub st ant i al r i ght s , a nd ( 4) “ the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” Id . , 50 7 U . S . at73 2-36 , 11 3 S . C t . at17 77 -79. In order t o qua l i f y a s “ pl a i n” e rr or , the e rr orm us tbe “ obvi ous ” or“ c l e a runde rc urr e nt l aw . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . C a n de la r io , 2 4 0 F .3 d 1 3 0 0 , 1 3 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .

“ [W ] here the expl i ci tl angu age of a s t atut e or rul e does notspec i fi ca l l y r es ol ve an i s s u e , th e r e c a n b e n o p l a i n e rr o rw h e r e th e r e i s n o p r e c e d e n tf r o m th e Su p r e me C ou rtor thi s C ou rtdi re ct l y r es ol vi ng i t . ” Se e U ni te d State s v . L e

j arde

- R ada , 319 F . 3d 12 88 , 12 91 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). T he D N A I de nt i f

i c a t i on A c tof

1994, pa r tof

the V i ol e ntC r i m e C ontr ol a nd L a w E n f o r c e m e n t A c t o f

1 9 9 4 , au th o r iz e d th e F e d e r a l B u r e au o f I n v e s tig a tio n to c r e a t e a n i n d e x o f

DN A s a m p l e s f

r o m p e r s o n s c o n v i c t e d o f c r i m e s . DN A I de nt i f i c a t i on A c tof

1994, § 210304( a ) , P ub. L . N o. 103- 332, 108 S t a t . 1796. T he D N A A na l y s i s B a c kl og E l i m i na t i on A c tof 2000 ( “ 2000 D N A A c t ” ) author i z e d the c o lle c tio n o f

D N A s a m p le s f

r o m f e d e r a l p r is o n e r s , p a r o le e s , a n dp r o b a tio n e r s . D N A A na l y s i s B a c kl og E l i m i na t i on A c tof 2000, § 3, P ub. L . N o. 106- 546, 114 S t a t . 2726 ( 2000) ( c odi f i e d a t42 U . S . C . § 14135a ) . T he 2000 D N A A c tauthor i z e d the c ol l e c t i on of

aD N A s a m pl e f

r om pe r s ons c onvi c t e d of al i m i t e d num be rof7

of f e ns e s , i nc l udi ng m ur de r , s e xua l abus e , s e xua l e xpl oi t a t i on orabus e of c hi l dr e n, a n d r o b b e ry o rb u r g la ry . Id . T he Just i ce F or A l l A ctof 20 04 (“ 20 04 D N A A ct ”) a m e nde d 42 U . S . C . § 14135at o e xpa nd the l i s tof qua l i f y i ng of f e ns e s f or c ol l e c t i on of

D N A s a m pl e s t o i nc l ude a ny f e l ony , a ny of

f e ns e unde rc hapt e r109A of T i t l e 18, a ny c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e , a nd a ny a tt e m ptorc ons pi r a c y t o c om m i ta ny of th o s e o f f e n s e s . Ju s tic e F o rA ll A c t o f 2 0 0 4 , § 2 0 3 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 8 - 4 0 5 , 1 1 8 S ta t. 2 2 6 0 ( c o d if

ie d a t 4 2 U .S .C . 1 4 1 3 5 a ( d ) ) . T he S upr e m e C our tha s e xpl a i ne d tha t“ the pr e s um pt i on a ga i ns tr e tr oa c t i ve l egi sl at i on i s dee pl y r oo t ed i n o ur j uri sprudence. ” L a n d g ra f v. U S I Fi lm P ro d

s. , 5 1 1 U .S . 2 4 4 , 2 6 5 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 1 4 8 3 , 1 4 9 6 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . I n d e te rm in in g w h e th e rac iv il st atut e i s i m perm i ss i bl y r etroac t i ve, w e m ustl oo k t o (1) w hether C on gres s has expres sl y pre sc ri bed the st atut e’ s proper r ea ch, and, i f not , (2) w hether the new s ta tu te w o u ld h a v e r e tr o a c tiv e e f f e c t, i . e. , w h e th e rit w o u ld im p a irr ig h ts ap a r ty p o ssessed w h en h e act ed , i n crease a p arty’ s l i ab i l i ty fo r p astco n d u ct , o r i m p o se n e w d u tie s w ith r e s p e c t to tr a n s a c tio n s a lr e a d y c o m p le te d . I d. at28 0, 11 4 S . C t . at 1 5 0 5 . W h ile th e S u p r e m e C o u r t w a s n o t e x p lic it in its h o ld in g , L andgr af has bee n c o n s tru e d a s ap p ly in g to th e r e tr o a c tiv ity o f c iv il s ta tu te s . Se e E

xx on Mobi l

C or p. v . A lla p a tta h Sv c s ., I

n c ., 54 5 U . S . __ , 12 5 S . C t . 26 11 , 26 29 . Iti s the E x P o st8

Fa c to C lau s e th a t ap p lie s to th e r e tr o a c tiv e ap p lic a tio n s o f c r im in a l s ta tu te s . L andgr af

, 511 U . S . a t266. T o pr e va i l on a n ex p o s t fa c to cl ai m , a d efen d an tm u st s h o w “b o th th a t th e la w h e c h a lle n g e s o p e r a te s r e tr o a c tiv e ly ( th a t it ap p lie s to cond uctbefore i t s e nactm ent ) and thati tra i se s the penal ty f rom w hat everthe l aw prov i ded w hen h e a ct ed. ” John son v. U ni ted Stat es , 5 2 9 U .S . 6 9 4 , 6 9 9 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 1 7 9 5 , 1 8 0 0 (2 0 0 0 ). B ecau se R o d ri g u ez i m p ro p erl y co n stru ed h i s cl ai m as a chal l enge un der L andgr af a nd di d notr a i s e an ex p o s t fa c to c ha l l e nge t o the appl i c a t i on of

the 2004 D N A A c t , thi s a r gum e nti s aba ndone d on appe a l a nd d e e m e d w a iv e d . See R ow e v . Schrei ber , 13 9 F . 3d 13 81 , 13 82 n. 1 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ). A ss um i ng R od ri gu ez w as corr ec ti n argui ng thatthe L andgr af a n a ly s is ap p lie s in th is c a s e a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n s h o u ld b e r e v ie w e d f o rp la in error, hi s c l ai m fa i l s und erthe se cond pron g o f the pl ai n err or st andard. R od ri gu ez has notpo i nt ed t o any ca se l aw fr om ou r C i rc ui tor the S up re m e C ou rtst at i ng that ( 1) C ongr e s s ha s e xpr e s s l y pr e s c r i be d the pr ope rr e a c h of the 2000 D N A A c tor 20 04 D N A A ct , or (2) the appl i ca t i on of the 20 04 D N A A ctor the 20 00 D N A A ct to a n in d iv id u a l w h o c o m m itte d a n o f f e n s e p r io rto th e e n a c tm e n t o f th e s ta tu te w o u ld h a v e a n im p e rm is s ib le r e tr o a c tiv e e f f e c t. T h e r e f

o r e , th e r e w a s n o p la in e rr o r . Se e L e

j arde , 319 F . 3d a t1291. E ven ass um i ng thatR od ri gu ez construed hi s c hal l enge un der the E x P o st9

Fa c to C l aus e , hi s c l a i m w oul d f a i l unde rthe pl a i n e rr ort e s t . N e i the rw e northe S up re m e C ou rthave st at ed thatthe 20 00 D N A A ctor the 20 04 D N A A ctop er at es r e tr o a c tiv e ly . Se e id . T here fore , R od ri gu ez has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh thatthe di stri ct c o u r t ’ s r e q u i r i n g h i m t o p r o v i d e aDN A s a m p l e wa s p l a i n e rr o r . Ac c o r d i n g l y we af fi rm as t o thi s i ss ue. II I. R o d r ig u e z f

in a lly a r g u e s th a t 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 3 5 av io la te s h is F o u r th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . R o d r ig u e z c o n c e d e s th a t w e u p h e ld an e a r ly id e n tic a l s ta te D N A pr of

i l i ng s t a tut e a ga i ns taF our th A m e ndm e ntc ha l l e nge i n P ad get t v. D o n a ld , 401 F . 3d 1273 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , a nd tha tthe r e i s no m e a ni ngf ul d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n th a t s ta tu te a n d th e f e d e r a l s ta tu te a t is s u e in th is c a s e . H ow ever , R od ri gu ez ra i se s the F ou rth A m endm enti ss ue t o p re se rve i tfor l at er r e v i e w. We r e v i e w de no vo adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s l e ga l c onc l us i ons a s t o the c o n s titu tio n a lity o f

as ta tu te . D oe v. Kearney , 32 9 F . 3d 12 86 , 12 93 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). I n P a d

g e tt , w e he l d tha tthe G e or gi as t a tut e , w hi c h r e qui r e d c onvi c t e d, i nc a r c e r a t e d f

e l ons t o pr ovi de as a m pl e of the i rD N A t o the G e or gi aD e pa r tm e ntof C o rr e c tio n s f

o ra n a ly s is a n d s to r a g e in ad a tab a n km a in ta in e d b y th e G e o r g ia10

B u r e au o f

I n v e s tig a tio n , d id n o t v io la te th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t. P a d g e tt , 401 F . 3d at12 80 . W e app l i ed a t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s anal ys i s t o d et erm i ne w hether th e G e o r g ias ta tu te w a s r e a s o n ab le . W e h e ld th a t “G e o r g ia ’s le g itim a te in te r e s t in c r e a t i ng ape rm a ne nti de nt i f i c a t i on r e c or d of

c onvi c t e d f

e l ons f orl aw e nf

or c e m e nt purpos e s outw e i ghs the m i nori ntrus i on i nvol ve d i n t a ki ng pr i s one r s ’ s a l i va s a m pl e s a nd s t or i ng the i rD N A pr of i l e s , gi ve n pr i s one r s ’ r e duc e d e xpe c t a t i on of pri vacyi n thei r i dent i t i es . ” Id . T h e r e is n o m e a n in g f

u l d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n th e G e o r g ias ta tu te a n a ly z e d in P a d g e tt and the fe dera l D N A st atut e a ti ss ue i n thi s c as e. T he st atut es ar e s i m i l ar i n a l m os te ve ry r e s pe c t . T he y onl y di f f e rs l i ght l y i n the i rs pe c i f i c i ty of the m e a ns autho ri ze d for ob t ai ni ng a s am pl e. B ec ause the G eorgi a and fe dera l D N A st atut es ar e a nal og ou s, ou r r ea soni ng un der P a d g e tt appl i es . T here fore , w e f i nd no error a s to th is is s u e . F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , w e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng. AF F I RME D.