United States v. Soto-Castillo

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Soto-Castillo appeals from his sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for unlawful reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . Soto-Castillo contends the district court erred by sentencing him to more than the statutory maximum for a violation of § 1326, when he did not admit nor did a jury find a date of deportation nor any prior convictions. He further asserts that the constitutional doubt doctrine requires that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), be limited to the holding that a prior conviction need not be alleged in the indictment when admitted in a guilty plea, but that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), still requires facts to be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He also contends that in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions, Almendarez-Torres has been overruled and that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Velasquez-Reyes, 427 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (rejecting the contention that the government is required to plead prior convictions in the indictment and prove them beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury unless defendant admits the prior conviction in his guilty plea); United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062 , 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that we continue to be bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in Almendarez-Torres); United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2001) (rejecting the contention that the fact of the temporal relationship between the deportation and the prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(2) is beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s recidivism exception). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.