United States v. Echeverria-Mendez , 223 F. App'x 215 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4744
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ELIAS ECHEVERRIA-MENDEZ, a/k/a Francisco
Javier Tiznado-Partida, a/k/a Martin Pineda,
a/k/a Juan Lopez Pineda, a/k/a Elias
Echevarria, a/k/a Elilas Mendez Echevarria,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00048-1)
Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryan Gates, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elias Echeverria-Mendez pled guilty to eight counts of a
superseding indictment, which charged him with drug trafficking,
money laundering, and alien re-entry offenses. The district court
sentenced him to 360 months imprisonment on the controlled
substance offenses, and 240 months on the money laundering and
illegal re-entry convictions, all to run concurrent with each
other. On appeal Echeverria-Mendez argues that his sentence was
unlawfully enhanced based on prior convictions.*
In United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005), we considered and rejected an
argument identical to that which Echeverria-Mendez raises on
appeal. We concluded:
It is thus clear that the Supreme Court
continues to hold that the Sixth Amendment (as
well as due process) does not demand that the
mere fact of a prior conviction used as a
basis for a sentencing enhancement be pleaded
in an indictment and submitted to a jury for
proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even were we
to agree with Cheek’s prognostication that it
is only a matter of time before the Supreme
Court overrules Almendarez-Torres [v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 140 L.
Ed. 2d 350 (1998)], we are not free to
overrule or ignore the Supreme Court’s
precedents.
*
We note that this argument relates only to the 240-month
sentence imposed on Echeverria-Mendez’s conviction for illegal re-
entry. His offense level for that crime was increased by sixteen
levels based on his prior conviction. His 360-month sentences for
the drug trafficking crimes were based only on the applicable drug
quantities.
- 2 -
Cheek, 415 F.3d at 352-53; see Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am.
Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989) (“If a precedent of this
Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on
reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of
Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to
this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”).
We therefore affirm Echeverria-Mendez’s sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -