FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT OCTOB ER 2, 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. 06- 11140 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -602 33 -C R -J IC 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 J U L I O M E J I A H E RN A N D 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 2, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:This sections require s a 16-leve l increa se in the off ense level of a

defendant who 1 previously

was deported or unla

wfully remained in the United States af ter a felony drug traff ickingoffense convic tion for which the sentenceimposed exceede d 13 months. U.S.S .G. § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) (I). 2 Jose Jul i o M ej i a H ernand ez appeal s hi s 41-m on th sent ence for i l l egal re entryaf t erdepo rt at i on , i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . §§ 13 26 (a ), (b)( 2), i m po se d aft era p le ao f g u ilty . O n ap p e a l, M e

jiaH e rn a n d e z a r g u e s th a t h is F if th a n d S ix th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d w he n, ba s e d on hi s pr i orf e de r a l c onvi c t i on f

or po ss es si on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne, the di stri ctcourtenhanced hi s s ent ence u n d e r§ 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) a n d ap p l i e d a1 6 - l e v e l Gu i d e l i n e e n h a n c e m e n tu n d e rU. S . S . G. § 2 L1 . 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( I ) . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o rth mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. 1 W e r e v ie w d e n o v o M e

jiaH e rn a n d e z ’s p r e s e rv e d c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e to h is s e n te n c e b a s e d o n th e f a ilu r e o f th e in d ic tm e n t to a lle g e h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . C a n te lla n o , 4 3 0 F .3 d 1 1 4 2 , 1 1 4 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e rt. deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 16 04 (200 6). M ej i a H ernand ez ’ s c hal l enge t o the 16 -l evel G ui de l i ne e nha nc e m e nti s r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l . H e a l s o a r gue s , f or the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l , thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d n othave m ade the fi nd i ng that hi s c onvi c t i on w a s a n a ggr a va t e d f e l ony unde r§ 1326( b) ( 2) , be c aus e s uc h a f i ndi ng w a s a na l ogous t o j udi c i a l f a c t - f i ndi ng aboutthe c ha r a c t e rof apr i or c onvi c t i on pr ohi bi t e d by S he pa r d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 544 U . S . 13, 125 S . C t . 1254, 16 1 L . E d. 2d 20 5 (20 05 ). T hese tw o argum ent s are re vi ew ed for pl ai n err or. S ee3

U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5). U nd erthi s s t andard of revi ew , there m ustbe (1) an err or, ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd ( 3) tha ta f f e c t s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . I d. I f the s e thr e e c ondi t i ons are m et , w e m ay n o t i ce th e erro r o n l y i f “ th e erro r seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on m arks om i tt ed). In order for an err or t o b e pl ai n, i tm ustbe ob vi ou s or c l ear und er c u rr e n t la w . U n ite d S ta te s v . G e rr o w , 2 3 2 F .3 d 8 3 1 , 8 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e f i nd nei ther e rr or no r pl ai n err or. S ec t i on 13 26 (a ) e st abl i shes a tw o-ye ar m a xi m um s e nt e nc e f

ora l i e ns w ho i l l e ga l l y r e - e nt e rthe U ni t e d S t a t e s a f t e rbe i ng d ep o rted . 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ). P u rs u an t t o § 1 3 2 6 (b )( 2 ), h o w ev er , i f a n alien ’s i ni t i a l r e m ova l w a s s ubs e que ntt o ac onvi c t i on f ora n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony , the st atut ory m axi m um i ncre as es t o 2 0 years ’ i m pri sonm ent . Id. § 1 32 6(b)(2). 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, 140 L . E d. 2d 350 ( 1998) , the U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C ourthe l d tha tthe a ggr a va t e d f e l ony c onvi c t i on r e qui r e d unde r§ 1326( b) ( 2) w a s nota n e l e m e ntof the of f e ns e a nd, thu s, the pri or conv i ct i on need no tbe al l eged i n the i nd i ctm ent . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v . G r e e r , 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . U n d e rA lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s , M e jia H e rna nde z ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i on di d notne e d t o be c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntnor p r o v e d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t in o r d e rf o rth a t c o n v ic tio n to b e u s e d to4

i nc r e a s e hi s s t a tut ory m a xi m um s e nt e nc e orG ui de l i ne r a nge . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M art i nez, 43 4 F . 3d 13 18 , 13 23 (11th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 29 46 (200 6); U n ite d S ta te s v . C a m a c h o - I b a r q u e n , 4 1 0 F .3 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 5 - 1 6 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e rt. deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 45 7 (20 05 ). A s w e have re peat edl y r ec og ni ze d, A l m endarez T orre s r em ai ns the l aw un t i l i ti s overrul ed by the S up re m e C ou rt . S ee , e. g. , G re er , 440 F . 3d a t1273; C a m a c ho- I ba r que n, 410 F . 3d a t1316 n. 3. M ej i a H ernand ez ’ s argum entthatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y det erm i ned thathi s pri or fe dera l conv i ct i on for posse ss i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne w as an aggravat ed fe l on y und er§ 1 32 6(b)(2) al so fa i l s bec ause i tw as a quest i on of l aw f orthe di s tr i c tc ourtt o de c i de . A n a ggr a va t e d f e l ony f orthe purpos e s of § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) in c lu d e s “illic it tr a f f ic k in g in ac o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e ( a s d e f in e d in s e c t i on 802 of

T i t l e 21) , i nc l udi ng adrug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e ( a s de f

i ne d i n s e c t i on 92 4(c) of T i t l e 18). ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43)(B ). W hether apri or conv i ct i on i s an a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony unde r§ 1101( a ) ( 43) i s aque s t i on of l a w . R a m s e y v. I . N . S . , 55 F . 3d 580, 582 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . S he pa r d i s i nappos i t e a s the c ourtne e d onl y f i nd tha tM e j i aH e rna nde z ha d af

e l ony c onvi c t i on f

orvi ol a t i ng 21 U . S . C . § 841. D rug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e s unde r§ 924( c ) ( 2) i nc l ude f e l oni e s puni s habl e unde rthe C o n tr o lle d S u b s ta n c e s A c t, 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 0 1 e t s e q .. 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 2 ) . S e c tio n 8 4 1 c r im in a liz e s p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te ac o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e .Cocaine is a schedule IIcontrolled substanc e. 21 U.S.C. § 812. 2 5 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ). W h ere th e o ffen se i n v o l v es co cai n e, th e d efen d an tfaces a 2 s t a tu t o ry ma x i mu m t e rm o f i mp r i s o n me n to f

a tl e a s t2 0 y e a r s . 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) - ( C ) . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin d e te rm in in g th a t M e jia H ernand ez ’ s f

eder al conv i ct i on for posse ss i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne w as a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y u n d e r§ 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) . In l i gh tof the foregoi ng , w e f i nd no error i n M ej i a H ernand ez ’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.