United States v. Ramos-Ruiz

114 F. App'x 351
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 3, 2004·No. No. 04-10130; D.C. No. CR-03-00170-HDM·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM**

Jose Reyes Ramos-Ruiz appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He contends that his 46-month sentence exceeded the statutory maximum allowed under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because he did not admit, and the government did not prove to a jury, his prior aggravated felony conviction, which the court used to increase his term pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052, 1053 (9th Cir.2004) (order denying rehearing and rehearing en banc). Ramos-Ruiz also contends that § 1326(b)(2) does not apply to him because he admitted to being deported but not to being removed. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Nunez-Rodelo, 378 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir.2004).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

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

United States v. Ramos-Ruiz, 114 F. App'x 351 (9th Cir. 2004).

114 F. App'x 351 (United States v. Ramos-Ruiz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. Ramon Nunez-Rodelo
378 F.3d 877 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Oscar Quintana-Quintana
383 F.3d 1052 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)