Opinion ID: 42811
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Constitutionality of the Enhancement

Text: Gonzalez-Patino argues, also for the first time on appeal, that the sixteen-level enhancement violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by unconstitutionally punishing him twice for his 1991 offense. See U.S. CONST. amend V. He contends that a court already sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment for the offense, and that the enhancement punishes him again for the same conduct. He also argues, again for the first time on appeal, that the enhancement violates the Eighth Amendment. See U.S. CONST. amend VIII. He contends that the enhancement, when considered with the time he already served for the 1991 offense, creates a punishment that is grossly disproportionate to his conduct. See Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 667 (1977). Gonzalez-Patino has not established error. The use of a prior conviction for enhancement purposes does not violate double jeopardy. Sudds v. Maggio, 696 F.2d 415, 417 (5th Cir. 1983). In addition, Gonzalez-Patino’s Eighth Amendment argument lacks merit. Our Eighth Amendment analysis is limited to the punishment 5 surrounding the illegal reentry. We cannot, as Gonzalez-Patino suggests, consider the current punishment in conjunction with the punishment for the 1991 offense. Cf. United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[A]ppellate review for Eighth Amendment challenges is narrow.”). GonzalezPatino’s fifty-seven months’ sentence is not grossly disproportionate to his conduct. Therefore, Gonzalez-Patino’s constitutional arguments fail.