United States v. Jose Arturo Raya-Ramirez

244 F.3d 976, 5 F. App'x 563, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5116, 2001 WL 300563
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 29, 2001
Docket00-3839
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 244 F.3d 976 (United States v. Jose Arturo Raya-Ramirez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Jose Arturo Raya-Ramirez, 244 F.3d 976, 5 F. App'x 563, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5116, 2001 WL 300563 (8th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Eduardo Olvera-Yanez pleaded guilty to illegally re-entering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). His sentence was enhanced under section 1326(b)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) because he had previously been deported after being convicted of an aggravated felony. The district court 1 sentenced him to 77 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release.

Olvera-Yanez argues on appeal, as he did below, that the fact of his prior aggravated-felony conviction had to be charged in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt because Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is no longer good law in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We reject this argument because the Apprendi Court declined to overrule Almendarez-Torres, id. at 2362, and we have previously declined to read Apprendi as disturbing the holding of Almendarez-Torres, see United States v. Rush, 240 F.3d 729, 731 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (Apprendi does not apply to fact of prior conviction); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 932 n. 4 (8th Cir.) (“In Apprendi, the Court left Almendarez-Torres untouched, although [it] expressed a willingness to reconsider it.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1026, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

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

Related

United States v. Tony E. Salas-Pineda
215 F. App'x 562 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Clint C. Morgan
202 F. App'x 933 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Aguilera-Alvarado
103 F. App'x 66 (Eighth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Hernandez-Arellano
44 F. App'x 54 (Eighth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Kempis-Bonola
287 F.3d 699 (Eighth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Gomez-Estrada
273 F.3d 400 (First Circuit, 2001)
United States v. A. Napoles-Garcia
16 F. App'x 525 (Eighth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Angel Lomas-Flores
9 F. App'x 582 (Eighth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 F.3d 976, 5 F. App'x 563, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5116, 2001 WL 300563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-arturo-raya-ramirez-ca8-2001.