FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 15, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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- 12442 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 6 8 9 - C R - MGC 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 F R E D E R I C O V I L C H 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

_________________________ ( D e c e m be r15, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F r e de r i c o V i l c he z pl e d gui l ty t o ac ha r ge f ori l l e ga l r e e ntry a f

t e rde port a t i on,2

i n vi ol a t i on of

8 U . S . C . § 1326( a ) a nd ( b) ( 1) , a nd w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 41 m onths of im p r is o n m e n t. V ilc h e z a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e u s e o f th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n s to e nha nc e hi s s e nt e nc e vi ol a t e d hi s F i f th a nd S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s a nd tha tthe use of a n u np roven and un adm i tt ed pri or conv i ct i on t o enh ance hi s s ent ence un der th e ad v i so ry S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es v i o l at es th e E x P o stF act o an d D u e P ro cess C l au s e s . A f

t e rr e v i e w , w e A F F I R M.

I . B AC KG RO UN D A cc ordi ng t o the fa ct s s t i pu l at ed t o atthe pl eahear i ng , V i l chez i s aP eruv i an c itiz e n w h o w a s p r e v io u s ly d e p o rte d f r o m th e U n ite d S ta te s in 1 9 9 6 . I n A p r il 2 0 0 4 , h e w a s in c a r c e r a te d in aD a d e C o u n ty J a il, c h a r g e d w ith f a ls e im p r is o n m e n t, st al ki ng , batt ery, threa t eni ng t o t am per w i th a w i tness , dri vi ng un der the i nfl uence, and d ri vi ng w i tho uta l i ce nse. T he go vernm entchar ged h i m w i th i l l egal re entry af t erdepo rt at i on , i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) and (b)(1). U nd er § 1 32 6(b)(1), V i l chez ’ s pri or fe l on y drug con vi ct i on s i ncre as ed the st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence fr om tw o years , un der § 13 26 (a ), t o t en ye ar s. T he di stri ct courtse nt ence d V i l chez t o 4 1 m on ths i m pri sonm ent , w hi ch i s abo ve the tw o-ye ar m a x im u m u n d e r§ 1 3 2 6 ( a ) . T he c e ntr a l i s s ue r a i s e d i n thi s c a s e i nvol ve s the appe l l a nt ’ s c l a i m tha tthe3

g o v e rn m e n t is o b lig a te d to p r o v e h is p r io rd ru g c o n v ic tio n s in th e g u ilt d e te rm in a tio n p h a s e o f

h is c a s e in o r d e rto u s e th e m a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . V i l c he z m a ke s aha l f

- he a rt e d a tt e m ptt o di s t i ngui s h bi ndi ng c i r c ui tpr e c e de ntbut a dm i t s tha thi s m a i n purpos e i s t o pr e s e rve the i s s ue f orpe t i t i on f

orc e rt i or a r i t o the U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u rt.

I I . DI S CUS S I ON V ilc h e z o b

je c te d to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s f a ilu r e to a lle g e in th e in d ic tm e n t h is pri or conv i ct i on s, w hi ch re sul t ed i n a i ncre as ed st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence un der 8 U . S . C . § 1326( b) ( 1) , a nd t o the e nha nc e m e ntof hi s of f e ns e l e ve l unde rthe G ui de l i ne s i n the di s tr i c tc ourt . W e r e vi e w the s e c l a i m s de novo on appe a l , a nd r e ve r s e the l a t e ronl y f

orha rm f ul e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a nde l a r i o, 240 F . 3d 13 00 , 13 06 (11th C i r. 20 01 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. P az , 40 5 F . 3d 94 6, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt e s tab lis h e d in A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s v . U n ite d S ta te s th a t a defe nd ant ’ s pri or conv i ct i on , i n the cont extof the i ncre as ed-penal ty provi si on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(b), i s m er el y ase nt enci ng fa ct or thatdo es no thave t o b e s ub m i tt ed to th e ju ry a n d 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. 5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 , 2 4 7 , 1 1 8 S . C t. 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 3 2

– 3 3 (1 9 9 8 ). T h e C o u rth el d th atth e u se o f a p ri o r co n v i ct i o n as a4

s e nt e nc i ng f

a c t ordoe s notvi ol a t e the D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e . I d. a t239–41, 247, 118 S . C t . at12 29 , 12 33 . T he C ou rtl at erhel d i n A pp re nd i v. N ew Je rs eythat“ [o] ther tha n apr i orc onvi c t i on, a ny f a c ttha ti nc r e a s e s the pe na l ty f orac r i m e be y ond the pr e s c r i be d s t a tut ory m a xi m um m us tbe s ubm i tt e d t o aj ury , a nd pr ove d be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt . ” 530 U . S . 466, 490, 120 S . C t . 2348, 2362–63 ( 2000) . T he C ourta l s o s t a t e d tha t“ w e ne e d notr e vi s i t[ A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s ] f orpurpos e s of

our deci si on t od ayt o tre atthe ca se as a narrow exce pt i on t o the general rul e. ” I d. at 4 9 0 , 1 2 0 S . C t. a t 2 3 6 2 . I n B l a ke l yv. W a s hi ngt on, the S upr e m e C ourt , i n e xa m i ni ng the s t a t e of W a s hi ngt on’ s s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s , he l d tha tthe i m pos i t i on of as e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e ntm us tbe s upport e d by f a c t s tha tw e r e e i the ra dm i tt e d by the de f e nda nt o rf o u n d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t b y th e ju ry . 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 , 3 0 3

– 0 4 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 2531, 2537–38. I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , the S upr e m e C ourte xt e nde d the r e a s oni ng of

B l a ke l y t o the f

e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , c onc l udi ng tha tthe m a n d a to ry n a tu r e o f

th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s r e n d e r e d th e m in c o m p a tib le w ith the S i xth A m e ndm e nt ’ s gua r a nt e e t o the r i ghtt o aj ury tr i a l . 543 U . S . a t___, 125 S . C t . 7 3 8 , 7 4 9

– 5 1 (2 0 0 5 ). T h e C o u rtex ci sed sev eral sect i o n s o f th e G u i d el i n es, m a k in g th e G u id e lin e s a d v is o ry , n o t m a n d a to ry . I d . a t _

__ , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 5 6

– 5 7 . In ext endi ng i t s hol di ng i n B l akel y t o the F eder al G ui del i nes, the C ou rt , i n B oo ker,5

e xpl i c i t l y r e a f

f i rm e d i t s r a t i ona l e i n A ppr e ndi tha taf a c t , othe rtha n apr i or c onvi c t i on, tha ts upport s as e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the s t a tut ory m a xi m um m us tbe a d m itte d b y th e d e f

e n d a n t o rs u b m itte d to aju ry a n d 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. I d . a t _

__ , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 5 6 . In U n it ed S tates v . M ar se il le, w e d ec li n ed to in terp re t th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s r a tio n a le in A p p r e n d i a s o v e rru lin g th e p r io rS u p r e m e C o u rt h o ld in g in A l m endarez -T orre s thatthe go vernm ent“ need no tal l ege i n i t s i nd i ctm entand n ee d no tprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthata def endanthad p ri or conv i ct i on s f or a di s tr i c tc ourtt o us e thos e c onvi c t i ons f orpurpos e s of

e nha nc i ng as e nt e nc e . ” 377 F . 3d 12 49 , 12 57 (11th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 63 7 (20 04 ). W e l at ercl ar i fi ed tha tthe S upr e m e C ourt ’ s de c i s 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 ppr e ndi , B l a ke l y , a nd B ooke r . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1329 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). V i l c he z pr e s e nt s tw o a r gum e nt s on thi s appe a l . F i r s t , he a r gue s tha tapr i or c o n v ic tio n th a t w a s n o t lis te d in th e in d ic tm e n t, p r o v e n b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t, o ra d m itte d c a n n o t b e u s e d to in c r e a s e h is s ta tu to ry m a x im u m f r o m tw o y e a r s to t e n y e a r s unde r18 U . S . C . § 1326( b) ( 1) . S e c ond, he c ont e nds tha tthe s e nt e nc i ng courtvi ol at ed hi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s a tse nt enci ng by enhanci ng hi s off ence l evel pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( 2004) . W e a ddr e s s the s e i n turn.Fur thermore , Vilchez did not object to the truth of the facts of his prior c onvictions. 1 His objection was to the useof those convic tions at sentencingwithout first list ing them in the indictment or provingthem beyond a re asonabledoubt. There fore , for B ooker pur poses, Vilchez admits the fac ts of his past convictions, and their useat sentenc ing w as not improper. See United States v. Burg e, 407 F .3d 1183, 1191 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 551 (2005). 6 A . 8 U . S . C . § 1326( b) ( 1) T h e r e is atw o - y e a rm a x im u m s e n te n c e f o ra lie n s w h o ille g a lly a tte m p t to r e - e n te rth e U n ite d S ta te s a f te rb e in g d e p o rte d . 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) . H o w e v e r , if a n a l i e n’ s i ni t i a l de port a t i on w a s s ubs e que ntt o tha tpe r s on’ s c onvi c t i on f orthe c om m i s s i on of

thr e e orm or e m i s de m e a nor s i nvol vi ng drugs oraf e l ony , the st atut ory m axi m um i ncre as es t o t en ye ar s. 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(b)(1). I n thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc ourtc orr e c t l y r e l i e d on V i l c he z ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i ons t o s e nt e nc e hi m i n a c c or da nc e w i th the i nc r e a s e d pe na l ty pr ovi s i on of § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) . S e e A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s , 5 2 3 U .S . a t 2 4 7 , 1 1 8 S . C t. a t 1 2 3 2

– 3 3 . F orthe S i xth A m e ndm e nt , B ooke rm a de c l e a rtha tpr i orc onvi c t i ons ne e d notbe a dm i tt e d t o by ade f

e nda ntorpr ove n t o aj ury be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt . 543 1 U . S . a t___, 125 S . C t . a t756. T he r e f or e , be c aus e A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s r e m a i ns good l a w , w e r e

j e c tV i l c he z ’ s c l a i m tha tthe i nc r e a s e i n hi s s t a tut ory m a xi m um s e n te n c e f

r o m tw o y e a r s to te n y e a r s u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) v io la te d h is F if th orS i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s . S e e S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1329.7

B . U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2(b)(1)(A ) Vi l c h e z ’ s o f

f e n s e l e v e l wa s i n c r e a s e d f r o m 8 t o 2 4 , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( A ). T h at se ctio n p ro v id es fo r a 1 6 -lev el in cr ea se to a d ef en d an t’ s base offe nse l evel i f the defendantw as previ ou sl y deport ed or un l aw ful l y r em ai ned i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s a f

t e r , i nt e ra l i a , ac onvi c t i on f oraf e l ony tha ti s adrug tr a f f i c k i n g o f f e n s e f o rwh i c h th e s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d e x c e e d e d 1 3 m o n th s . U. S . S . G. § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unc a n, w e he l d tha t , pos t - B ooke r , w he n ade f e nda nt w as se nt ence d t o the st atut ory m axi m um for off ense s c om m i tt ed pre-Bo ok er , that d e f e n d a n t h a d “s u f

f ic ie n t w a rn in g ” to s a tis f y d u e p r o c e s s a n d e x p o s t f a c to concerns. 40 0 F . 3d 12 97 , 13 08 (11th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 43 2 (20 05 ). I n thi s c a s e , V i l c he z kne w a tthe t i m e the of f e ns e w a s c om m i tt e d tha tthe G u i d el i n es al l o w ed th e j u d g e t o en g ag e i n j u d i ci al fact -fi n d i n g an d th att en years’ i m pr i s onm e ntw a s apot e nt i a l c ons e que nc e of hi s a c t i ons . T he r e f

or e , the r e w a s no e x p o s t f a c to o rd u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n . S e e D u n c a n , 4 0 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 7 . A s to V i l c he z ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e nha nc e m e ntof hi s s e nt e nc e unde rthe G u id e lin e s v io la te d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to aju ry tr ia l, th e S u p r e m e C o u rt, i n B oo ker, hel d thati tw as the m andat ory nature of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes that im p lic a te d th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . a t _

__ , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 5 0 .8

H er e, the di stri ctcourtac kn ow l edged thati tw as appl yi ng the G ui del i nes a s a dvi s ory . T he r e f

or e , unde rB ooke r , V i l c he z ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w e r e not vi ol a t e d. F urthe rm or e , be c aus e A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s r e m a i ns good l a w , the r e i s no S i xth A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on by appl y i ng aG ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt ba s e d on pr i orc onvi c t i ons . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m a c ho- I ba r que n, 410 F . 3d 1307, 13 15 –1 6 (11 th C i r. ) ( per c uri am ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 45 7 (20 05 ).

I I I . CO NC L US I ON V i l chez appeal ed the det erm i nat i on of hi s s ent ence fol l ow i ng a gui l ty pl ea . W e f in d n o e rr o r . A FFI R M ED .