Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Miguel Orduno-Mireles, 405 F.3d 960, 11th Cir. (2005)
United States v. Miguel Orduno-Mireles, 405 F.3d 960, 11th Cir. (2005)
3d 960
Darlene M. Geiger, Fed. Pub. Def., Fort Myers, FL, Frank William
Zaremba, Asst. Fed. Pub. Def., Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
David Paul Rhodes, Yvette Rhodes Harrison, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tampa, FL,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.
Before BIRCH, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
First, Orduno-Mireles argues that neither of his two prior felony convictions,
one for unlawful sexual activity with certain minors and the other for burglary
of a dwelling, can be used to support the 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.
2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because the crimes do not qualify as "crimes of violence."
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, when sentencing a defendant convicted of
illegal reentry, the district court can enhance the defendant's base offense level
by 16 levels if "the defendant previously was deported ... after... (A) a
conviction for a felony that is ... a crime of violence...." U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1).
A "crime of violence" is defined as including:
Moreover, in its recent Booker decision, the Court again reaffirmed its holding
first pronounced in Apprendi: "Any fact (other than a prior conviction), which
is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the
facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must admitted by the
defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." 125 S.Ct. at 756
(emphasis added). The reason for the exception for prior convictions is clear:
"a prior conviction must itself have been established through procedures
satisfying the fair notice, reasonable doubt, and jury trial guarantees." Jones v.
United States, 526 U.S. 227, 249, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 1227, 143 L.Ed.2d 311
(1999). Thus, the Court's holding in Booker, that the Guidelines cannot be
mandatory consistent with a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, is not
implicated when a defendant's sentence is enhanced based on a prior
conviction. Put another way, because the prior-conviction exception remains
undisturbed after Booker, a district court does not err by relying on prior
convictions to enhance a defendant's sentence.3
10
We have held that "Almendarez-Torres remains the law until the Supreme
Court determines that Almendarez-Torres is not controlling precedent." United
States v. Guadamuz-Solis, 232 F.3d 1363, 1363 (11th Cir.2000); see also
United States v. Marseille, 377 F.3d 1249, 1257 & n. 14 (11th Cir.) (refusing to
interpret Apprendi as overruling the prior Supreme Court decision in
Almendarez-Torres, and concluding that Blakely"does not take such factfinding out of the hands of the courts"), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct.
637, 160 L.Ed.2d 480 (2004); Thomas, 242 F.3d at 1034-35 (refusing to
reconsider the holding of Almendarez-Torres in the light of Apprendi because
of the "very basic fact that we cannot overrule Supreme Court decisions"). In
short, we can find no plain error on this basis.4
11
Accordingly, the district court did not err when it enhanced Orduno-Mireles's
sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).
12
AFFIRMED.
Notes:
1
The district court did not indicate which prior conviction it considered to
support the 16-level enhancement. Although we have addressed both, we note
that the U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) requires only one prior felony conviction
that is for a crime of violence
The Supreme Court's recent decision inShepard v. United States, ___ U.S. ___,
125 S.Ct. 1254, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005), does not change our analysis in this
case. Orduno-Mireles does not contend, and our own de novo review of the
record does not reveal, that the district court resolved disputed facts related to
the prior conviction which were not adjudicated in the prior proceeding. Id. at
1262. ("While the disputed fact here can be described as a fact about a prior
conviction, it is too far removed from the conclusive significance of a prior
judicial record, and too much like the findings subject to Jones and Apprendi, to
say that Almendarez-Torres clearly authorizes a judge to resolve the dispute.").
4
sentence, even if it could have. The district court did not say that the sentence
was too severe, as the court did in Shelton; indeed, in denying Orduno-Mireles's
motion for a downward departure, the court observed: "Your history and the
way you lived your life is why I'm denying your motion for downward
departure.... Your criminal history speaks more clearly on actions than mere
words." On this record, Orduno-Mireles has not shown a reasonable probability
of a different result if the Guidelines had been applied in an advisory instead of
binding fashion, as required to satisfy the third prong of non-constitutional
Booker plain error.