Opinion ID: 653668
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Challenge to Sentencing by Flores and Rodriguez

Text: 80 Flores and Rodriguez claim that the district court did not follow the appropriate procedures when it sentenced them. Specifically, they contend that the district court improperly enhanced their sentences without complying with the requirements of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851(b). 10 That statute sets forth the requirements that the government, the criminal defendant, and the district court must follow when the government seeks to enhance the defendant's sentence because of prior convictions. Section 851(a) requires the government to file an information with the court before trial which states in writing the previous convictions to be relied upon. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851(a)(1). If the government complies, as it did in this case, section 851(b) directs the district court, before pronouncement of sentence, to ask the defendant whether the defendant affirms or denies that alleged prior conviction. Rodriguez and Flores argue--quite accurately--that the district court did not comply with this requirement. No matter, Rodriguez and Flores' argument still fails. 81 Flores' argument fails because he was sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines or U.S.S.G). Section 851 applies to persons convicted of an offense under Title 21 when the government seeks to enhance the maximum penalty under the recidivist provisions of that statute. The statute does not apply, however, when sentencing is conducted under the Sentencing Guidelines and the defendant receives an increased sentence which is within the statutory range. United States v. Belanger, 970 F.2d 416, 417 n. 1 (7th Cir.1992) (citations omitted). The maximum penalty prescribed for a violation of two of the three statutes Flores was convicted of--sections 841(a)(1) and section 846--is life imprisonment. 11 Flores received a sentence of 364 months pursuant to the Guidelines. This sentence is within the statutory range. Therefore, the requirements of section 851 do not apply. 82 Rodriguez's section 851(b) argument fails as well, but for different reasons. The district court sentenced Rodriguez to life imprisonment and fined him $25,000 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(A). 12 Section 851's requirements apply, therefore, because Rodriguez was not sentenced pursuant to the Guidelines. The government's information reveals that Rodriguez's two prior convictions, for sentence enhancement purposes, are a 1976 Cook County, Illinois conviction for heroin delivery and a 1982 federal conviction in Puerto Rico for a drug conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine. 83 Section 851(e) prohibits a defendant from challenging a conviction that is more than five years old. 13 A district court is not required to adhere to the rituals of Sec. 851(b) where a defendant, as a matter of law, is precluded from attacking the conviction forming the basis of the enhancement information. United States v. Nanez, 694 F.2d 405, 413 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 909, 103 S.Ct. 1884, 76 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983). See also United States v. Fragoso, 978 F.2d 896, 902 (5th Cir.1992) (trial court need not adhere to requirements of section 851(b) where conviction more than five years old), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1664, 123 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993); United States v. Housley, 907 F.2d 920, 921-22 (9th Cir.1990) (same); United States v. Weaver, 905 F.2d 1466, 1482 (11th Cir.1990) (same), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1091, 111 S.Ct. 972, 112 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1991). The government filed the information in this case on January 28, 1991. Rodriguez's two prior convictions occurred more than five years before that date. The requirements of section 851(b) do not apply. 84