Altamirano-Ortiz

United States v. Altamirano-Ortiz

Good Law
201 F. App'x 569
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 15, 2006No. 05-30436California429 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rogelio Altamirano-Ortiz appeals from his 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm and remand.

Altamirano-Ortiz contends that pursuant to Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. *570 13 , 125 S.Ct. 1254 , 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), and Dretke v. Haley, 541 U.S. 386 , 124 S.Ct. 1847 , 158 L.Ed.2d 659 (2004), the avoidance of constitutional doubt doctrine requires the court to construe 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and the Sentencing Guidelines such that the fact of a prior conviction must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this Court has recently reaffirmed that the fact of a prior conviction may be used to enhance a defendant’s offense level under the Guidelines, and increase a defendant’s statutory maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b), even where the prior conviction was not admitted by a defendant. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, the doctrine of avoidance of constitutional doubt does not require the statute and Guidelines to be…

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.