Sepulveda

United States v. Sepulveda

Good Law
58 F. App'x 760
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 19, 2003No. 02-10231; D.C. No. CR-01-00144-DWH/RAMCalifornia258 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*761 MEMORANDUM **

Jose Lauriano Sepulveda appeals the judgment of conviction and his 68-month sentence for unlawful reentry by a deported, removed and/or excluded alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 .

Sepulveda contends that he cannot be subjected to a sentencing enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b), because that statute only applies to aliens who have been removed, and not to aliens who have been deported or excluded, as Sepulveda was. This contention lacks merit because we have held that there is no legally significant distinction between “deportation” and “removal” for purposes of the crime defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a) and the enhancement under section 1326(b). See United States v. Lopez-Gonzalez, 183 F.3d 933, 934-35 (9th Cir.1999).

Sepulveda also contends that the district court violated his rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) because 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b) describes a separate crime from subsection (a), and must be pled in the indictment. As he acknowledges, this issue has been foreclosed by United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 976 , 122 S.Ct. 1450 , 152…

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.