FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ANUARY 3, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O N OT P UBL ISH] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1110 4 N on -A rg um en t C ale nd ar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00031 -CR- W CO- 2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us NOEL VA LIENTE-GAL LARDO, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Ap peal fromthe Un ited S tates D istrict C ourt fo r th e N or th er n D ist ri ctof Ge or gia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry3, 200 6) Be fo re TJ OF LA T, BI R C H a nd BL A C K, C ir cu itJu dg es . PE R C URIAM :2

N oe l V al ie nte -G al lard o a ppe al s hi s se nte nc e fo r ill eg al ly r e- ente ri ng the U nit ed S tate s a ft er

pr ev iou s de portatio n, in vio latio n of 8 U . S. C. § 13 26( a) and (b )( 2) . V al ie nte -G al lard o a sse rt s th e dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d hi s F if th and S ixth A m en dm ent r igh ts b y

( 1) f ind ing him

to be an a ggr av at ed

f el on p ur suant t o 8 U. S. C. § 132 6(b)(2), and increasing his statu tory m axim um sentence fr om

2 y ears to 20 y ears ; (2 ) ap pl y in g a16 -le ve l en ha nc em en t p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A ), ba se d onhis pr ior c onvi ct ionf

or ac ri m e of

vio le nc e; and ( 3 ) s e n t e n c i n g h i m b a s e dup o nac r i mi n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry o f I V . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, V al ie nte -G al lard o c ont en ds h is F if th Am en dm ent r igh ts w er e vio late d be ca use his pr ior c onvi ct ion s w er e not

inc lud ed in the ind ic tm ent, and h is S ixth A m en dm ent ri ght s w er e vio late d be ca use his pr ior

c onvi ct ion s w er e not

pr ove n be y ond a reas on ab le do ub t o r ad m it te d b y hi m . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t err, an d we a ffi rm . W e re view a defendant’ s preserved constituti onal challenges to h is sentence de no vo bu t wi ll rev ers e o nl y forha rm fu l erro r. See U nited Sta tes v . Paz , 405 F . 3d 946, 948 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). Sentences im posed after United States v. B ooker , 125Va lie nte -Gal lard o d oe s n ot c ha lle ng e the re a so na ble ne ss o f h is s e nte nc e . T hu s, we wi ll 1 on ly c on sid e r h is F if

th a nd Sixth Ame ndme nt c ha lle ng e s.

3 S. Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), are r ev ie w ed f or r ea sona ble ne ss. U

nited Sta tes v . W

ini nge ar , 1 42 2 F .3d12 41 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).

“ In Alm endarez-Torres v. U nited Sta tes , [ 118 S. Ct . 121 9 ( 1998 )] the Suprem e Court held that the governm ent need not allege in its in dictm ent and need not prov e bey ond a reasonable doub t that a defendant had prior conviction s for a di st ric t co urt t o u se th os e co nv ic ti on s fo r pu rp os es of e nh an ci ng a se nt en ce.” U nited Sta tes v . M

ars ei lle , 37 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 57 (11 th Cir .), cert. denied , 125 S. Ct . 637 ( 2004 ). W e have r ec ently c lari fi ed the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Alm endarez-Torres “ w a s l e f tun d i s tur b e db y A ppre ndi , B lak

el y , and Booker .” U nited Sta tes v . She lto n , 400 F . 3d 1 325, 132 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . I n United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen , we hel d adi st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A) ba se d o n p rio r co nv ic ti on s d idno t v io la te a de fen da nt ’s Six th Am en dm en t ri gh ts . 41 0 F .3d13 07 , 13 16 n.3 (11 th Cir .), ce rt. denied , 1 2 6 S . C t . 4 5 7 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . R e c e n t l y, w e re af fi rm ed Alm endarez-Torres rem ains goo d law a fter Booker , hol din g

“because the prior-c onvi ction exception rem ains und isturbed after Booker , a d i s tri ctco urtd o es n o terr b y re l yin g o np ri o r c o n v i ct i o n s t o en h an ce a d ef en d an t ’s4

sentence.” United State v. Orduno-Mireles , 40 5 F .3d96 0, 9 62 (11 th Cir .), ce rt. denied , 12 6 S . Ct. 2 23 (20 05 ). A s f or V al ie nte -G al lard o’ s F if

th Am en dm ent c la im s, ba se d up on the hol din g in Alm endarez-Torres , the ind ic tm ent ne ed not inc lud e pr ior

c onvi ct ion s in ord er fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o u se th os e co nv ic ti on s fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es . See M ars ei lle , 377 F . 3d at 12 57. A cc or din gly , V al ie nte -G al lard o’ s F if th Am en dm ent claim s fail. A s for V aliente-G allardo’ s Sixth Am endm ent claim s, the district court did no t violate his Sixt h Am endm ent rights in light o f Booker because the court ap pli ed the Guid el ine s a s a dvi sor y . 125 S . Ct . at 74 9–56 . F urthe rm or e, e ve n if the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d a

ppl ie d th e Guid el ine s a s m an dator y , pr ior c onvi ct ion s ne ed

not be pr ove n be y ond a re as ona ble doubt i n or de r to b e use d f or se nte nc ing pur

pose s, and Valiente- Ga llardo’ s crim inal histo ry category and the im

posit ion of a 16-level enhancem ent under U. S. S. G. § 2L1.2( b)(1)(A ) did not im plicate Booker

be ca use th ey m erel y in vo lv eda de te rm in at io n t ha t Val ie nt e-Gal la rd o h adpri orco nv ic ti on s. See Camacho-Ibarquen , 410 F . 3d at 13 15–1 6; Orduno-Mireles , 40 5 F .3dat 9 62 . Thu s, Val ie nt e-Gal la rd o’s Si xt h Am en dm en t cl ai m s al so fai l. AFFIRMED.