United States v. Lazaro Huerta-Pimental, AKA Jose Huerta

Huerta-Pimental appeals the revocation of his term of supervised release and the subsequent imposition of additional imprisonment for violating the conditions of release. Specifically, Huerta-Pimental asserts that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his term of supervised release and to impose a new term of imprisonment because the original imposition of supervised release as a part of his sentence was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). HuertaPimental argues that, because the statute under which he was convicted, 8 U.S.C. § 1326 , does not mandate the imposition of supervised release, the district court exposed him to additional punishment beyond the maximum sentence authorized by § 1326 by imposing it pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583 . Huerta-Pimental also directly challenges the revocation proceedings under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

We conclude § 3583 supervised release is constitutional under Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker . Because…