United States v. Salvador Rodriguez , 128 F. App'x 733 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                            [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    April 19, 2005
    No. 04-14761
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 04-00160-CR-1-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    SALVADOR RODRIGUEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Georgia
    _________________________
    (April 19, 2005)
    Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Salvador Rodriguez appeals his 77-month sentence for illegal reentry into
    the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. sections 1326(a) and
    (b)(2). Rodriguez argues that the enhancements to his sentence based on his
    previous convictions violated the Sixth Amendment. We affirm the sentence.
    Because Rodriguez objected to the sentence enhancements in the district
    court, we review the challenges to his sentence de novo. United States v. Sanchez,
    
    269 F.3d 1250
    , 1272 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc). We will not reverse the district
    court if any error was harmless. 
    Id.
     An error is harmless if it did not affect the
    substantial rights of the parties. United States v. Hernandez, 
    160 F.3d 661
    , 670
    (11th Cir. 1998).
    Rodriguez challenge to his sentence fails. In United States v. Booker, the
    Supreme Court reaffirmed that the rule announced in Apprendi does not extend to
    previous convictions. 543 U.S. __, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    , 756 (2005). The Sixth
    Amendment was not violated, therefore, when the district court calculated the
    guideline sentence and accounted for Rodriguez’s previous convictions.
    Furthermore, any error committed by the district court in sentencing Rodriguez
    under the guidelines, as mandatory, was harmless, because the district court stated
    that were the guidelines not mandatory it would have imposed a sentence of 15
    years’ imprisonment, more than twice that actually received by Rodriguez.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-14761; D.C. Docket 04-00160-CR-1-1

Citation Numbers: 128 F. App'x 733

Judges: Dubina, Per Curiam, Pryor, Tjoflat

Filed Date: 4/19/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023