United States v. Jose Raya-Ramirez

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 29, 2001
Docket00-3839
StatusPublished

This text of United States v. Jose Raya-Ramirez (United States v. Jose 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 Raya-Ramirez, (8th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _____________

No. 00-3839NE _____________

United States of America, * * Appellee, * On Appeal from the United * States District Court v. * for the District of * Nebraska. Jose Arturo Raya-Ramirez, * * Appellant. * ___________

Submitted: March 20, 2001 Filed: March 29, 2001 ___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Jose Arturo Raya-Ramirez 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 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because he had previously been deported after being convicted of an aggravated felony (four of them, in fact). The District Court1 sentenced him to five years and ten months (70 months) imprisonment and three years supervised release.

1 The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. Raya-Ramirez argues on appeal that because the fact of a prior aggravated- felony conviction was not alleged in the indictment and was neither proved to a jury nor admitted through his guilty plea, the enhanced sentence violates the standards announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). We reject this argument. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226 (1998), which upheld the validity of the section 1326(b)(2) aggravated-felony enhancement for section 1326(a) violators, was not overruled by Apprendi. See 120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Cortez-Delatorre, No. 00-2066, 2000 WL 1665078 (8th Cir., Nov. 7, 2000); 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, 121 S. Ct. 600 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-

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. Fabian Aguayo-Delgado
220 F.3d 926 (Eighth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Jose Raya-Ramirez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-raya-ramirez-ca8-2001.