United States v. Barajas-Serrato
This text of 10 F. App'x 575 (United States v. Barajas-Serrato) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM2
Miguel Barajas-Serrato appeals the judgment of conviction and 40-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Barajas-Serrato contends that in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), section 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because it allows a court to increase the maximum penalty at sentencing, based on whether a defendant was deported subsequent to a prior conviction for an aggravated felony, without submitting this fact to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (upholding enhancement where the defendant admitted to underlying felony convictions and subsequent deportation) and 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). See United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir.2001).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
10 F. App'x 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-barajas-serrato-ca9-2001.