United States v. Sanchez-Calle
This text of 334 F. App'x 857 (United States v. Sanchez-Calle) 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
Victor Angel Sanchez-Calle appeals from the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sanchez-Calle contends the district court violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), by enhancing his sentence beyond the two-year statutory maximum because the temporal relationship between his pri- or removal(s) and his prior felony conviction was not alleged in the indictment, admitted by him, or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the indictment alleged at least one date of removal which Sanchez-Calle admitted at the Rule 11 hearing, the district court’s determination that the removal took place subsequent to a prior felony conviction did not violate Apprendi. See United States v. Mendoza-Zaragoza, 567 F.3d 431, 434 (9th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Beltran-Munguia, 489 F.3d 1042, 1053 (9th Cir.2007).
Sanchez-Calle also contends that we should apply the the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to limit the holding of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 846-47 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).
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
334 F. App'x 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sanchez-calle-ca9-2009.