US v. Jose Noel Villalta Trejo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00061-TSE-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999542807]. [14-4578]

Appeal: 14-4578

Doc: 26

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4578

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE NOEL VILLALTA TREJO, a/k/a Elmer Rodriguez Vialta,
a/k/a Jose Noel Villailta Trejo, a/k/a Jose Trejo, a/k/a
Cleto Federico Trinin Hernandez,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00061-TSE-1)

Submitted:

March 3, 2015

Decided:

March 10, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L.
Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Gul Raza Gharbieh, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J.
Boente, United States Attorney, Adam Ptashkin, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4578

Doc: 26

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jose

Noel

Villalta

Trejo

appeals

his

30-month

sentence,

imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry
removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012).
Trejo’s

prior

conviction

for

an

aggravated

after

In light of

felony,

he

was

subject to the 20-year statutory maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b) (2012).
On appeal, Trejo claims that 8 U.S.C. Ҥ 1326(b) defines a
separate, aggravated offense, and that, because [his] indictment
did not allege a prior conviction, it charged only a violation
of § 1326(a).”

(Appellant’s Br. at 8).

He therefore argues

that his 30-month sentence exceeds the 2-year statutory maximum
set forth in § 1326(a), in violation of “his due process, grand
jury,

and

jury

Amendments.”
This
foreclosed
Torres v.

trial

rights

under

the

Fifth

and

Sixth

(Id.).

claim,
by

as

the

United

acknowledged

Supreme

States,

523

Court’s
U.S.

by

Trejo,

decision
224,

226-27

is
in

squarely

Almendarez-

(1998).

See

United States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 124 (4th Cir. 2014)
(“Almendarez-Torres remains good law, and we may not disregard
it unless and until the Supreme Court holds to the contrary.”),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 942 (2015); United States v. Graham,
711 F.3d 445, 455 (4th Cir.) (“[W]e are bound by Almendarez-

2

Appeal: 14-4578

Doc: 26

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

Torres unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.”),
cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 449 (2013).
Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

expressed

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3