F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 23 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1532 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 05-60118 -CR- JIC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us HO WARD OR

VI LL E O RAL DY ER , a. k. a . E ric K eith Dy er, a. k. a . H or ac e Br ow n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

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

(J un e 23, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN Aand H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

D ef en dant- Appe llant H ow ar d O rv ill e O ra l D y er appe al s hi s 37 -m onth se nte nc e fo r ill eg al r e- en tr y int o th e U nit ed

S ta te s a ft er

pr ev iou sly

be ing de porte d, 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) an d( b ) ( 2 ) . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. D ef en dant arg ue s th at , w he n c al cu la tin g hi s c ri m ina l hi sto ry c at eg or y f or se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in re ly ing on a

N at ion al Cr im e In fo rm at ion Ce nte r (“ N CI C” ) re port sh ow ing that he ha d aJun e 1991 c onvi ct ionf or poss ession o f m arij uana. D efendant contends th at the N CIC r eport is hearsay ev ide nc e that i s in suf

fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh a pr ior c onvi ct ion . D ef

en dant a lso a sse rt s that hi s June 199 1 c onvi ct ionw as f or apr obatio n vi olatio n and w as not a co nv ic ti on rel at edto a ne w off en se . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco ur t’s fi nd in gs on sen te nc in g m at te rs forcle ar erro r. U nit ed S ta te s v. Jor di, 418 F . 3d 1 212, 121 4 ( 11th C ir . ), c er t. de nie d, 126 S . Ct . 812 (200 5). W e have explained that district courts m ay consider reliable hear say evidence at sentencing. United States v. Z latogur, 271 F.3d 1025, 1031 (11th Cir. 2001 ). “ The district court m ay rely on such evid ence as long as the evidence has suf fi ci en t i ndi ci a of

r el ia bil ity , the c ourt m ak es e xpl ic it fi ndi ngs of f ac t a s to cr ed ibi lity , and the de fe ndant h as an op portun ity to re but the e vid en ce . ” I d. (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) .3

At sentencing, D efendant obje cted to the calculation of his crim inal histo ry category based, in part, on the Jun e 1991 conv iction do cum ented by the NC IC re port; an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d arg um ents m ad e by D ef en dant and the gove rn m en t a

bout the sc or ing of

D ef en dant’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry c at eg or y . B ec au se D ef en dant o ff

er ed no e vid en ce ind ic at ing that the N CI C r ep ort w as unr el ia ble or that hi s June 199 1 se nte nc e w as a ct ua lly f or apr obatio n vi olatio n, it

w as not cl earl y e rr one ous fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt t o r el y on the N CI C r ep ort i n de te rm ini ng D e f e n d an t ’s c r i mi n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry. D ef en dant n ex t arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in de te rm ini ng tha t the statutory m axim um sentence for his offe nse was 20 y ears, as provided by8 U. S. C. § 1 32 6( b) (2 ), in st eadof t wo years, wh ic h i s au th or iz edby 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( a). D ef en dant c ont en ds tha t, be ca use his ind ic tm en t di d no t c harg e a se parate of fe nse unde r se ct ion132 6( b) (2 ), the statut or y m ax im um pr ovi de d by

that se ct iondoe s no t ap ply to him . A lth oughD ef

en dant c onc ed es that the S upr em e Co urt c onc lud ed in A lm en dare z- T or

re s v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 523 U . S. 224 , 118 S . Ct . 121 9, 140 L . E d. 2d 350 (199 8), that sec tion 1 326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and is no crim inal of fe nse se parate f

ro m se ct ion132 6( a) , he a sse rt s th at r ec en t de ci sio ns o f the Su pr em e Co urt have c al le d in to que sti on the c ont inu ing va lid ity of the Alm en da rez- Torr es de ci si on .4

Bec au se Defen da ntdi d n otrai se th is is su e b efo re t he di st ric t co ur t, we re vie whis c la im

onl y f or pla in e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 1298 ( 11th C ir . ), c er

t. de nie d, 125 S . Ct . 293 5 ( 2005 ). U nde r a pla in- er ro r an al y sis , w e m ay

not c or re ct the e rr or unl es s th er e is “ (1 ) er

ro r, ( 2) that i s pl ai n, (3 ) that a ff

ec ts s ubst an tia l r igh ts, and ( 4) the e rr or se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , or

pub lic r ep utatio n of

j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. ” I d. ( int er na l qu otatio n om it te d) . U nde r se ct ion132 6( a) , any a lie n w ho h as be ende porte d and s ubse que ntl y re-e nters the United States w ithou t perm issio n is sub j ect to a m axim

um two-y ear sentence. Sec tion 1 326(b)(2) provides th at an alien who has been depo rted – after be ing c onvi ct ed

of an a ggr av at ed

f el ony – and r e- en te rs the U nit ed S ta te s w ith out perm issio n is sub

j ect to a statutory

m axim um sentence of 20 y ears. In A lm en dare z- T or

re s, the S upr em e Co urt c onc lud ed that se ct ion132 6( b) (2 ) is a

“penalty provisio n, which sim

ply authorizes a court to increase the sentence for a recidivist. It does not define a separ ate cr im e. ” 523 U. S. at 226, 118 S. C t. at 12 22 . In this case, De fendant does not assert that he com m itted no agg ravated felony that would trigger the 20-y ear statutory m axim um of section 1326 (b)(2); ins te ad , he arg ue s he c oul d no t be se nte nc ed und er that se ct ionbe ca

use his5

in di ct m en t fa il edto ch arg e h im wit h asep arat e cri m e u nd er s ect io n 1 32 6( b) (2 ). Bec au se th e Supr em e Co ur t h as no t ex pl ic it ly ove rru le d Al m en da rez- Torr es , we co nti nue to fo llo wthat de ci sio n. U nit ed S ta te s v. Cam ac ho- Ib ar que n, 410 F . 3d 1307 , 1316 n.3 (11th Cir.) , c ert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 457 (200 5). Ther efore, D ef en dant’ s c la im

f ai ls. AFFIR MED.