US v. DeLamos
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4030
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REY ROJAS DELAMOS, a/k/a Rojas Delamos, a/k/a Reynaldo Jajas Delalama, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cr-00122-BR) Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: October 22, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: A federal grand jury charged Rey Rojas DeLamos in a single count indictment with illegal reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2000). DeLamos pled guilty. He now
appeals the ninety--six--month prison term imposed by the district court. We affirm. DeLamos sentenced him to argues a term that the district two years court under improperly 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b) (2000) because his prior aggravated felony conviction was not charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Under § 1326(a), an alien who illegally returns to the United States after being removed may be imprisoned for up to two years. However, § 1326(b)(2) provides that if the alien's "removal was subsequent to an aggravated felony," he faces a maximum prison term of twenty years; if the alien was deported after conviction of a non-aggravated felony, the maximum sentence is ten years under § 1326(b)(1). DeLamos concedes that the Supreme Court ruled in
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), that § 1326(b) is a penalty provision, not an element of the offense which must be charged in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he contends that Almendarez-Torres was
called into question by the Supreme Court's opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny and should no longer be considered some binding precedent. the Although future Apprendi of
regarding - 2 -
Almendarez-Torres was not overruled by Apprendi, and remains the law. See United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1010 (2005). DeLamos' claim is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm DeLamos' sentence. We dispense We therefore conclude that
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?