Botello-Santiago

United States v. Botello-Santiago

Good Law
27 F. App'x 914
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 28, 2001No. 99-50466; D.C. No. CR-98-01075-R-1California571 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Eleazar Botello-Santiago appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Botello-Santiago first argues that, because his sentence was enhanced on the basis of his prior kidnaping conviction, his sentence constitutes a second punishment for that offense. Because Botello-Santia-go did not raise this issue before the dis- *916 triet court, we review the issue under the plain error standard. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Antonakeas, 255 F.3d 714, 727 (9th Cir.2001). A plain error is a clear or obvious error that affected the defendant’s substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. United States v. Vences, 169 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.1999).

Due to the sixteen level enhancement for his prior conviction, Botello-Santiago’s sentencing range under the Guidelines was forty-six to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment. This is below the statutory maximum sentence provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(2) and, therefore, the enhancement does not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.