United States v. Arriaga-Arroyo

10 F. App'x 567
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 30, 2001
DocketNo. 00-10594; D.C. No. CR-00-00070-DWH
StatusPublished

This text of 10 F. App'x 567 (United States v. Arriaga-Arroyo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Arriaga-Arroyo, 10 F. App'x 567 (9th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM2

Amado Arriaga-Arroyo appeals the judgment of conviction and 30-month sentence following his guilty plea to a single count of being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Arriaga-Arroyo contends that in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court improperly imposed a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) because the government neither pled in the indictment nor established through the guilty plea that Arriaga-Arroyo had been deported subsequent to a prior conviction for an aggravated felony. He also contends that Apprendi renders inapplicable Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense). These arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), as amended (Feb. 8, 2001), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 121 S.Ct. 1503, — L.Ed.2d — (2001) and by United States v. Castillo Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

We remand for the limited purpose of directing the district court to amend the judgment to reflect a conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) only. United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.2000) (sua sponte remanding to-the district court with directions to correct the judgment of conviction to exclude a reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. Juan Carlos Herrera-Blanco
232 F.3d 715 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Castillo-Rivera
244 F.3d 1020 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 F. App'x 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-arriaga-arroyo-ca9-2001.