Narrative Opinion Summary
Jorge Garcia appeals a 33-month and 25-day sentence following his guilty plea for illegal reentry after deportation, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the use of a prior conviction not specified in the indictment to exceed the two-year statutory maximum is unlawful, citing Apprendi v. New Jersey. However, this argument is rejected based on precedent established in United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda. The court affirms the sentence. The memorandum is not intended for publication and cannot be cited except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Precedential Authority in Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court relied on established precedent to affirm a sentence that incorporates prior convictions not listed in the indictment.
Reasoning: However, this argument is rejected based on precedent established in United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda. The court affirms the sentence.
Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion issued is not intended for publication and has limited citation permissions as per circuit rules.
Reasoning: The memorandum is not intended for publication and cannot be cited except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Sentencing Enhancement Based on Prior Convictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum based on a prior conviction not specified in the indictment, following existing precedent.
Reasoning: He argues that the use of a prior conviction not specified in the indictment to exceed the two-year statutory maximum is unlawful, citing Apprendi v. New Jersey. However, this argument is rejected based on precedent established in United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda.