United States v. Caro-Grimaldo
This text of 327 F. App'x 683 (United States v. Caro-Grimaldo) 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
MEMORANDUM
David Caro-Grimaldo appeals from the 34-month sentence imposed on resentencing following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Caro-Grimaldo contends that the district court erred under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466; 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), by enhancing his sentence based on his removal subsequent to a prior conviction, when his indictment did not allege the date of the prior removal. He further contends that the error was structural.
As a preliminary matter, we conclude that neither the scope of this Court’s prior remand for resentencing nor the law of the case doctrine precludes review of Caro-[684]*684Grimaldo’s Apprendi challenge. See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 885-86 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc); see also United States v. Cote, 51 F.3d 178, 181 (9th Cir.1995). However, we reject Caro-Grimaldo’s contention that the failure to allege the date of removal in his indictment constituted structural error, and we conclude that any error was harmless. See United States v. Salazar-Lopez, 506 F.3d 748, 751-56 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
327 F. App'x 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-caro-grimaldo-ca9-2008.