Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant challenged a 37-month sentence for illegal re-entry following deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The appeal was made under the jurisdiction of 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The appellant contended that the district court erroneously included criminal history points from prior state convictions because of the absence of a certified interpreter during attorney-client meetings. However, the court found that this challenge did not pertain to the denial of the right to counsel as required by Gideon v. Wainwright, and thus, under Custis v. United States, the appellant could not collaterally attack these prior convictions. The appellant further argued that his sentence violated the statutory maximum under Apprendi v. New Jersey, as it was premised on a prior conviction not included in the indictment. This argument was dismissed based on United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, which allows prior convictions to be considered as sentencing factors. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, noting that the case was not suitable for publication or citation per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Collateral Attack on Prior Convictions in Federal Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied Custis v. United States to reject the appellant's attempt to collaterally attack his prior state convictions on grounds unrelated to the denial of the right to appointed counsel.
Reasoning: Javier-Lopez argues that the district court improperly included criminal history points from prior state convictions due to the lack of a certified interpreter during attorney-client meetings. However, his challenge is not based on the denial of counsel for an indigent defendant, as established in Gideon v. Wainwright, and thus cannot collaterally attack his prior convictions on this basis, following the precedent set in Custis v. United States.
Use of Prior Convictions in Sentencing and Apprendi Implicationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the appellant's claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum under Apprendi v. New Jersey by referring to United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, which permits the use of prior convictions as sentencing factors.
Reasoning: Javier-Lopez claims his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum under Apprendi v. New Jersey, as it was based on a prior conviction not mentioned in the indictment. However, this argument is dismissed as it is foreclosed by United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, which states that all prior convictions can be considered as sentencing factors, not just those admitted on the record.