### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D e c e m be r 16, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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- 11209 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 32 -C R -01-W C O -2 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 M E L Q U I A D E S B E N I T E Z - V A L E N C I A , a .k .a . P a u lin o V a le n c ia , a .k .a . N a in H a rr is o n H u e r ta , 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 16, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M el qu i ades B eni t ez -V al enci a app ea l s hi s 41-m on th sent ence for bei ng an a l i e n w ho ha d i l l e ga l l y r e - e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s a f t e rbe i ng de por t e d, a nd w h o s e r e m o v a l h a d b e e n s u b s e q u e n t to th e c o m m is s io n o f a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y , in vi ol at i on of S ec t i on s 276 (a )( 1) and (b)(2) of the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct (I N A ), 8 U . S . C . §§ 13 26 (a )( 1), (b)( 2). O n app ea l , he ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt vi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o a j ury a nd F i f th A m e ndm e nti ndi c tm e nta nd due pr oc e s s r i ght s by e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e on the ba s i s of a pr i orc onvi c t i on not c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t o rp r o v e n to a ju ry . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th m o r e f

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

f i rm. A c c or di ng t o the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( P S I ) , the pr e s e ntc ha r ge ar ose a ft eran Im m i grat i on and C ust om s E nforcement A gentencoun t er ed B eni t ez V al enci a w hi l e he w as i m pri soned i n G eorgi a on charges of burgl ary a nd cr i m i nal dam age t o p roperty. A ft erhe pl ea ded g ui l ty t o the st at e c harges , he w as tr a n s f e rr e d to f e d e r a l c u s to d y f

o rp r o s e c u tio n o n th e in s ta n t o f f e n s e . T h e P S I s e tB e n i t e z - Va l e n c i a ’ s b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l a t8 , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2L 1. 2. I tf

ound tha tB e ni t e z - V a l e nc i apr e vi ous l y ha d be e n c onvi c t e d a nd r e m ove d, a f

t e ra n i l l e ga l e ntry i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s , f orthe a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony of c o m m e r c ia l b u r g la ry , a n d , th u s , a n e ig h t- le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t w a s a d d e d p u r s u a n t toThe off ense use d by

the PSIwas a

commerc ial burg lary

committed in 1998, for which 1 B en ite z- V alen c ia

w a s c o nv ic te d

an d later d ep o rte d . F urth er

mo re , th ePS Iindic ate s th at B en ite zValenc ia first entered theUnited States in September 1997 a nd was deported on November 6, 19 97 . H eag ain i lle g ally

entere d th eUnite d St ate s o n D e c e mber 8 , 1 99 7, wa s c onvic te d in California for

the commercial burg lary offense at issue on March 23, 1998, and w as depor ted on May 8, 1998. Despite having be en depor ted a se cond time, B enitez-Valencia returne d to the Unite d St ate s il le g ally

on at le a st thre eoth er o c c a sio ns , w a s depo rte d e a c h time , a nd ag ain entered the United States illeg ally, only to ag ain be c aught for committing a crime in Ge org ia, leadingto the instant federal cha rg es. 3 U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2(b)(1)(C). B eni t ez -V al enci a w as then g i ven a three -l evel 1 re du ct i on for a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty und erU . S . S . G . §§ 3E 1. 1(a) and (b), for a t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of

13. H i s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory w a s f ound t o be V I w hi c h, a tof f e ns e l e ve l 13, pr ovi de d f orar e c om m e nde d gui de l i ne r a nge of 33 t o 41 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. B e ni t e z - V a l e nc i a di d notf i l e a ny obj e c t i ons t o the P S I , butdi d f i l e a m ot i on t o de c l a r e the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s unc ons t i tut i ona l i n l i ghtof B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2004) . A f t e rthe m ot i on w a s f

i l e d, butbe f

or e s e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the m ot i on t o the e xt e ntr e qui r e d by the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , w hi c h ha d he l d tha tthe m a n d a to ry n a tu r e o f

th e g u id e lin e s v io la te d th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. A tse nt enci ng , B eni t ez -V al enci a pursued on e f urther obj ec t i on , ar gu i ng that the i nd i ctm entdi d n otal l ege thathe previ ou sl y had been conv i ct ed of an a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony , a nd, the r e f

or e , hi s s t a tut ory m a xi m um s e nt e nc e w a s be i ngTh edis tric t c ourt a pp e arsto h avec ha

rac teri zed B enite z-V alenc ia ’sargument a s a 2 motion, not an objection. To the extent that itwas a motion, not an objection, the motion was denied, notwithstandingthe fact that the cour t stated that it was over

rulingthe objection. 4 i nc r e a s e d f

r om 2 t o 20 y e a r s i n vi ol a t i on of A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348, 147 L . E d. 2d 435 ( 2001) . T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponde d tha tthe i n d i c tme n tc h a r g e d Be n i t e z - V a l e n c i au n d e rI N A § 2 7 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) , w h ic h p r o v id e d f o rth e 2 0 - y e a rs ta tu to ry m a x im u m , th u s g iv in g h im no t i ce of the m axi m um pu ni shm ent . Itfurther a rgued that , un der 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 3 5 0 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , th e in d ic tm e n t d id n o t h a v e to a lle g e th e a g g r a v a te d f e lo n y . B eni t ez -V al enci a then argued thatthe A l m endarez -T orre s dec i si on no l on ger had th e s u p p o r t o f

f iv e o f th e n in e S u p r e m e C o u r t ju s tic e s . T he di stri ctcourtov errul ed B eni t ez -V al enci a’ s obj ec t i on , fi nd i ng that A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s di d notr e qui r e the i ndi c tm e ntt o a l l e ge the a ggr a va t e d f e l ony because i tw as sol el y a n enh ance m entand n otan el em entof the offens e i t se l f. 2 T he c our tthe n a dopt e d the P S I ’ s f i ndi ngs a nd gui de l i ne s c a l c ul a t i ons , s e tt i ng a r e c om m e nde d s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 33- 41 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . A f t e rhe a r i ng f r o m th e p a r tie s r e g a r d in g a n ap p r o p r ia te s e n te n c e , th e c o u r t im p o s e d a 4 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e o n B e n ite z - V a le n c ia . O n ap p e a l, B e n ite z - V a le n c iaa r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d th e S ix th5

A m en d m en tri g h tt o a j u ry an d th e F i fth A m en d m en ti n d i ctm en tan d d u e p ro cess ri gh t s bec ause i tenhanced hi s s ent ence on the basi s of apri or conv i ct i on t o w hi ch he di d nota dm i ta nd tha tw a s nota l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntorf ound by a j ury , a nd th a t th e r e s u ltin g s e n te n c e a ls o v io la te d th e tw o - y e a rs ta tu to ry m a x im u m p e n a lty un der I N A § 2 76 (a ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) . H e c on ce des thatou r pre ce denthas r e j e c t e d hi s a r gum e nt . N e ve r the l e s s , B e ni t e z - V a l e nc i aa r gue s tha tthe r a t i ona l e f or no tre qu i ri ng pri or conv i ct i on s t o b e c harged i n the i nd i ctm entor prov en t o a j ury i s bas ed on A l m endarez -T orre s, w hi ch he argues i s i n con si derabl e dou bt , and that the de c i s i ons i n B l a ke l y a nd B ooke rr e qui r e tha ts e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s be c ha r ge d a nd p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. W he r e a de f

e nda ntm a ke s a c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge t o hi s s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt s , w e c onduc ta de novo r e vi e w . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a z , 405 F . 3d 946, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). In B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe m andat ory n a tu r e o f th e F e d e r a l 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 th e S ix th A m e ndm e nt ’ s gua r a nt e e of a r i ghtt o a j ury tr i a l . B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t___, 125 S . C t . at74 9-51 . In so do i ng , the C ou rtaf fi rm ed i t s hol di ng i n A pp re nd i : “ A ny fa ct ( othe rtha n a pr i orc onvi c t i on) w hi c h i s ne c e s s a ry t o s uppor ta s e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the m axi m um autho ri ze d b y the fa ct s e st abl i shed by a pl eaof gu i l ty or aj ury v e r d ic t m u s t b e a d m itte d b y th e d e f e n d a n t o rp r o v e d to a ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le6

doubt . ” B ooke r , 543 U . S a t___, 125 S . C t . a t756. Po s t - Bo o k e r , w e h a v e h e l d th a tn o th i n g i n Bo o k e rd i s tu rb e d th e Su p r e me C o u r t’s h o ld in g s in A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s o rA p p r e n d i, a n d th a t ad is tr ic t c o u r t, th er ef o re , d o es n o t errb y r elyin g o n p rio r c o n v icti o n s to en h an ce a d ef en d an t’ s se nt ence . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. O rdun o-M i re l es , 40 5 F . 3d 96 0, 96 2-63 (11th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed ___ S . C t . ___ (U . S . O ct . 3, 20 05 ) ( N o. 05 -514 1); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. G al l egos-A gu er o, 40 9 F . 3d 12 74 , 12 76 -77 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ); U ni t ed S t at es 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 r t. d e n ie d ___S .C t. ___ ( U . S . O c t . 3, 2005) ( N o. 05- 6178) . W hi l e B e ni t e z - V a l e nc i aa r gue s tha tthe S upr e m e C our t ’ s r e c e ntde c i s i on i n S he pa r d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 544 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 1254, 161 L . E d. 2d 205 ( 2005) c a s t s doubton the c ont i nui ng va l i di ty of A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s a s pr e c e de nt , w e r e c ogni z e tha tA l m e nda r e z - T orr e s c oul d, be c a us e of

c a s e s l i ke S he pa r d, a r guabl y be ove rrul e d. C a m a c ho- I ba r que n, 410 F . 3d a t1316 n. 3. U nt i l the S upr e m e C our te xpl i c i t l y doe s s o, how e ve r , w e ha ve h e l d th a twe wi l l f

o l l o w A l m e n d a r e z - T o rr e s a s p r e c e d e n t . I d . T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c lu d e th a t B e n ite z - V a le n c ia ’s a r g u m e n t la c k s m e r it. F urtherm ore, w e f

ee l com pel l ed t o n ot e thatthere i s ase ri ou s a nd fa t al fl aw to B e n ite z - V a le n c ia ’s a r g u m e n t a s it c o n c e rn s th e g u id e lin e s . B e n ite z - V a le n c ia w a s s e nt e nc e d unde rthe pos t - B ooke ra dvi s ory gui de l i ne s . T he r e f or e , the7

gui de l i ne s e nha nc e m e ntm a de by the di s tr i c tc our ton the ba s i s of a pr i or c onvi c t i on c oul d notha ve vi ol a t e d hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s be c a us e the enhancem entw as no tbi nd i ng on the courtatse nt enci ng . S ee B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . at

___, 12 5 S . C t . at76 4-65 (hol di ng thatthe const i tut i on al i nfi rm i ty of the gu i del i nes i s r em edi ed by m aki ng the gu i del i nes a dv i soryra ther than m andat ory) ; U ni t ed S t a t e s v. C ha u, N o. 05- 10640, m a nus c r i ptop. a t13- 14 ( 11th C i r . S e pt . 27, 2005) (hol di ng thatthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y f ou nd , by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence, f a c t s tha tw e ntbe y ond the l e tt e rof the c ha r ge s i n the i ndi c tm e ntbe c a us e the gui de l i ne s w e r e appl i e d i n a n a dvi s ory w a y ) . B e ni t e z - V a l e nc i a ’ s a r gum e nton ap p e a l i g n o r e s th e r e m e d i a l p o r t i o n o f th e B o o k e ro p i n i o n a n d , th e r e f o r e , we c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc om m i ta ny S i xth A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on by m a ki ng f a c tua l f i ndi ngs i n c onne c t i on w i th s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt s unde rthe G u id e lin e s . F i nal l y, as t o B eni t ez -V al enci a’ s F i fth A m endm entchal l enge, n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e f

a c t th a t n o th in g in B o o k e ra d d r e s s e d th e F if th A m e n d m e n t, w e co n cl u d e th atth e m ax i m u m sen t en ce i n th i s case w as n o t2 years as h e assert s, bu tra ther 20 year s, pu rs uantt o IN A § 2 76 (b)( 2), 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(b)(2), as char ged i n the i ndi c tm e nti t s e l f

. S e e I N A § 276( b) ( 2) , 8 U . S . C . § 1326( b) ( 2) ( pr ovi di ng thatany a l i en w ho se re m ov al w as subsequentt o a conv i ct i on for a n agg ra vat ed8

fe l on y s hal l fa ce a m axi m um of 20 ye ar s’ i m pri sonm ent ). T he defi ni t i on of an a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony , f orpurpos e s of

the I N A , i nc l ude s the f

tof f e ns e s s uc h a s the c om m e r c i a l bur gl a ry B e ni t e z - V a l e nc i ac om m i tt e d a f t e ri l l e ga l l y e nt e r i ng the Un i t e d S t a t e s , a n d f

o rwh i c h h e wa s s u b s e q u e n t l y d e p o rt e d . S e e I NA § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( G ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( G ) . A s w e h a v e r e c o g n i z e d , th e U . S. C o d e e stab li sh es th e s tatu to ry m ax im u m se n ten ce , an d B en it ez -V alen cia’s i ndi c tm e ntc ha r ge d hi m unde r8 U . S . C . § 1326( b) ( 2) , pr ovi di ng hi m not i c e of the po t ent i al 20 -y ea r i m pri sonm enthe fa ce d as are sul tof hi s r em ov al fol l ow i ng an undi s put e d c onvi c t i on f orc om m e r c i a l bur gl a ry . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 400 F . 3d 1297, 1308 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, ___ S . C t . ___ ( U . S . O c t . 11, 2005) ( N o. 0 5 - 5 4 6 7 ) . T hu s, w e c on cl ud e thatno F i fth o r S i xth A m endm enterror occurr ed, as B eni t ez -V al eni ci a’ s 41-m on th sent ence w as w el l w i thi n the 20 -y ea r s t atut ory m axi m um , pri or conv i ct i on s nee d n otbe prov en t o a j ury or c harged i n an i nd i ctm entand, i n any event , the di stri ctcourtw as fr ee t o fi nd that B e ni t e z - V a l e nc i a w a s s ubj e c tt o a gui de l i ne s e nha nc e m e ntf orhi s pr i orc onvi c t i on b e c a u s e th e g u id e lin e s w e r e n o t b in d in g o n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. AF F I RME D.