Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
00-1712•USA v. Robert John Jackaway
00-1712United States Court Of Appeals For The 8th Circuit30.03.2001
1The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 00-3532
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * District of Nebraska.
*
Luis Santiago Ramirez-Gil, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: March 20, 2001
Filed: March 30, 2001
___________
Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Luis Santiago Ramirez-Gil pleaded guilty to illegally re-entering the United
States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). His sentence was enhanced
under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because he had previously
been deported after being convicted of an aggravated felony. The District Court1
sentenced him to 46 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Ramirez-Gil argues that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000),
required the government to charge the fact of his prior aggravated-felony conviction in
the indictment. Apprendi, Ramirez-Gil argues, overruled Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which had held that an earlier aggravated-felony
conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that need not be charged as
an element of the offense. Apprendi, however, held that "other than the fact of a prior
conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed
statutory maximum must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable
doubt." 120 S. Ct. at 2362-63 (emphasis added). The Apprendi Court also explicitly
declined to overrule Almendarez-Torres. Id. at 2362. Likewise, we decline to read
Apprendi as disturbing the holding of Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Rush,
240 F.3d 729, 731 (8th Cir. 2001) (noting that Apprendi does not apply to fact of prior
conviction); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 932 n.4 (8th Cir.) (“In
Apprendi, the Court left Almendarez-Torres untouched"), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 600
(2000)).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.