FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 26, 2008 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. 07- 15242 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 07 -601 57 -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 G U S T A V O G O N Z A L E Z - L O P 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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 26, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G usta vo G on za l ez -L op ez appeal s f rom hi s 46-m on th sent ence , i m po se d aft er he pl e d gui l ty t o one c ountof i l l e ga l l y r e - e nt e r i ng the U ni t ed S t at es a f t e rha vi ng2

b ee n d ep ort ed, i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) . O n app ea l , G on za l ez -L op ez ar g u es th athi s F i fth and S i xth A m endm entri gh t s w er e vi ol at ed because the di stri ct courtenhanced his se nt ence b ased on fa ct s thati tfoun d u nd era pre po nd er ance o f-th e-ev i d en ce st an d ard an d th atw ere n o tch arg ed i n th e i n d i ctm e n to r fo u n d b y a j u ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab l e d o u b t . A f t e rth o r o u g h r e v i e w , w e a f f i r m. W e r e vi e w c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s t o a s e nt e nc e de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m p b e ll, 4 9 1 F .3 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 1 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . S e c t i on 1326( a ) of

T i t l e 8 pr ovi de s t h at an al i e n w ho ha s be e n r e m ove d f r om the U ni t e d S t at es an d s ubs e que nt l y r e - e nt e r s the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thoutr e c e i vi ng perm i ss i on fr om the A tt orn ey G en er al m ay be i m pri soned, bu tno tfor m ore than tw o yea rs . 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) . S ub se ct i o n (b)( 2) prov i des thatany a l i en desc ri bed i n s ubs e c t i on ( a ) , “ w hos e r e m ova l w a s s ubs e que ntt o a c onvi c t i on f orc o m m i ssi on of an aggravat ed fe l on y, [] shal l be fi ned u nd er su ch T i t l e, i m pri soned n otm ore than 2 0 yea rs , or bo th[. ] ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(b)(2). I n A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s v . U n ite d S ta te s , a d e f e n d a n t w h o w a s c h a r g e d w ith i l l e ga l l y r e - e n t e r i n g th e U n i t e d St a t e s a f t e rb e i n g d e p o r t e d u n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 (a), arg u ed th ath e co u l d n o tb e sen t en ced t o m o r e th a n tw o years’ i m pr i s onm e ntb ecau se h i s pr i ora ggr a va t e d f e l oni e s w e r e notm e nt i one d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , s uc h tha the c oul d notbe s e nt e nc e d unde r§ 1326( b) ( 2) . 523 U . S . 224,3

2 2 7 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . Th e Su p r e me Co u r tr e j e c t e d hi s a r g u me n ta n d h e l d th a t8 U . S. C. § 1326( b) ( 2) i s a pe na l ty pr ovi s i on, nota s e pa r a t e c r i m e , an d t h a t“ ne i the rthe st atut e nor the C on st i tut i on re q u ires the G ov ernm entt o charge . . . an ea rl i er c o n v ic tio n [ ] in th e in d ic tm e n t.” I d . a t 2 2 6 - 2 7 . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n e nha nc i ng G onz a l e z - L opez’ s se nt e nc e us i ng a p r io r ag g rav at ed fel o n y th at w as n o t al l eg ed i n th e i n d i ctm en t . T h i s p ractic e is perm i tt ed un der A l m endarez -T orre s, w hi ch re m ai ns bi nd i ng prec edent . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D ow d, 45 1 F . 3d 12 44 , 1 2 5 3 (1 1th C i r. 20 06 ) ( re cogn i zi ng thatw e a re bo un d b y A lm en d ar ez -T orre s unt i l i ti s e xp l i ci t l y overrul ed by the S up re m e C ou rt ). F ur the r m or e , G onz a l e z - L ope z di d notobj e c tt o the s t a t e m en t i n the P S I northe go vernm ent ’ s proff

erthathe had a pri or conv i ct i on th at const i tut ed an aggravat ed f e lo n y . T h e r e f

o r e , h e a d m i t t e d th a t f a c t, a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e n g a g e in a ny e rr one ous j udi c i al fact -f i ndi ng abouthi s pr i orc onvi c t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 48 0 F . 3d 12 77 , 12 81 (11t h C i r. ) ( “ w hen a defendantfa i l s t o o bj ec tt o a fa ct c ont a i ne d i n the P S I ori n the gove rnm e ntpr of f e ra tthe pl e a c ol l oquy , the defe nd anti s dee m ed t o h ave a dm i tt ed the fa ct , w hich m ay th en be used t o enh ance th e s e n te n c e ” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 8 S .C t. 1 7 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o mmi tt e d n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r , a n d w e a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.