Opinion ID: 162770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Which is the Relevant Felony?

Text: 8 Defendant does not argue that his previous burglary conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony for purposes of the statute or as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Rather, he argues that the only relevant felony conviction for purposes of § 1326(b)(2) was the cocaine possession conviction because it was the most recent conviction immediately preceding his last deportation.
9 At the sentencing hearing, defendant argued that the burglary conviction could not be the basis for enhancement because it had not been listed in the indictment. To the extent defendant raises that issue on appeal, we note that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the existence of a prior felony or felonies for purposes of § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor which simply authorizes a court to increase the sentence for a recidivist, and does not define a separate criminal offense. Id. at 226, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Thus, neither the statute nor the Constitution requires the Government to charge the factor that it mentions, an earlier conviction, in the indictment. Id. at 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219; see also United States v. Mercedes, 287 F.3d 47 (2d Cir.2002) (finding no infirmity under Almendarez-Torres where the government substituted a different aggravated felony than the one charged in the indictment and admitted in the plea).
10 Turning to defendant's primary argument, we note that the relevant statutory subject matter of [§ 1326(b)] is recidivism. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 230, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Recidivism is defined as [a] tendency to relapse into a habit of criminal activity or behavior. Black's Law Dictionary 1021 (7th ed.2000). The words tendency and habit are terms inclusive of a person's total criminal history, not just to some crime which may happen to immediately precede a sentencing. 11 Further, the Supreme Court, in discussing the statute, explicitly referred to the obligation of a sentencing judge to take into account an offender's prior record in every case. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 230, 118 S.Ct. 1219 (citing U.S.S.G. §§ 4A.1.1 and 4A1.2). The district judge here understood that duty and referred to her belief that case law and certainly [the] statute and the Sentencing Guidelines not only permit but require me to look at this defendant's criminal history in order to establish an appropriate sentence under the statute. R. Vol. II at 6. There is no indication in case law or in commentary to support defendant's position that only the immediately preceding felony is relevant here.