USA v. Pacheco-Salazar
Filing
920070806
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40406 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RUBEN PACHECO-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-858 -------------------Before REAVELY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:* Pacheco-Salazar appeals the 90-month sentence that resulted from his guilty-plea conviction for being found in the United States without permission after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pacheco-Salazar argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the 90-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)'s treatment of Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*
He
No. 06-40406 -2prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. Pacheco-Salazar'S constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, Pacheco-
276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).
Salazar properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Pacheco-Salazar also argues that the 16-level enhancement was improper because his 1993 burglary conviction under Florida Statute § 810.02 was not a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). This court reviews the sentencing court's
interpretation and application of the Guidelines de novo because Pacheco-Salazar raised the issue in the district court. See
United States v. Calderon-Pena, 383 F.3d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 2004)(en banc), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1076 (2005). The charging document, on which the enhancement was based, expressly charged Pacheco-Salazar with entering or remaining "in a certain dwelling," and the judgment for the Florida conviction
No. 06-40406 -3expressly refers to a "dwelling." Because the definition of
dwelling in § 810.011(2) includes "the curtilage thereof," Pacheco-Salazar's offense may have occurred on the "curtilage" of the property, which would not constitute a "burglary of a dwelling" under § 2L1.2. See United States v. Gomez-Guerra, 485 Accordingly, Pacheco-Salazar
F.3d 301, 303-04 (5th Cir. 2007).
was not convicted of the enumerated offense of "burglary of a dwelling." See id. Because the district court improperly
calculated the sentencing guideline range, we VACATE and REMAND for resentencing. VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
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?