Narrative Opinion Summary
Elpedio Zambrano-Ayala appeals a 32-month sentence following his guilty plea for illegal re-entry as a previously deported alien, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The court affirms the sentence, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Zambrano-Ayala argues that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence based on a prior aggravated felony conviction that was neither charged in the information nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this argument is precluded by the Supreme Court's ruling in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which was not revisited in Apprendi v. New Jersey. Therefore, the court affirms the sentence, stating that this disposition is not suitable for publication and may not be cited in this circuit except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court asserts its jurisdiction to review the sentence imposed on Zambrano-Ayala.
Reasoning: The court affirms the sentence, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The disposition of this case is not suitable for publication and has limitations on its citation within the circuit.
Reasoning: Therefore, the court affirms the sentence, stating that this disposition is not suitable for publication and may not be cited in this circuit except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Precedent of Almendarez-Torres v. United Statessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The precedent set by Almendarez-Torres allows sentence enhancement based on prior convictions without them being charged or proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasoning: However, this argument is precluded by the Supreme Court's ruling in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which was not revisited in Apprendi v. New Jersey.
Sentence Enhancement Based on Prior Convictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's enhancement of Zambrano-Ayala's sentence due to a prior aggravated felony conviction is upheld.
Reasoning: Zambrano-Ayala argues that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence based on a prior aggravated felony conviction that was neither charged in the information nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt.