United States v. M. Granados-Gonzalez , 139 F. App'x 775 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-1497
    ___________
    United States of America,            *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,           *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                              * District Court for the
    * Western District of Arkansas.
    Miguel Granados-Gonzalez, also       *
    known as Perfecto Granados-Gonzalez, *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Defendant - Appellant.          *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 20, 2005
    Filed: July 29, 2005
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and COLLOTON,
    Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Miguel Granados-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to the charge of illegally reentering
    the United States after being convicted of an aggravated felony and deported, a
    violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). The Presentence Investigation Report
    recommended an eight-level increase because Granados-Gonzalez was previously
    deported after an aggravated felony conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). The
    sentencing hearing was held two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision in United
    States v. Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    (2005). The district court overruled Granados-
    Gonzalez’s objection to the eight-level enhancement, which resulted in an advisory
    guidelines sentencing range of 30-37 months in prison. The district court then
    reviewed the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and concluded that a sentence
    at the bottom of the advisory range, thirty months in prison, was reasonable.
    On appeal, Granados-Gonzalez argues that the district court erred by using the
    eight-level enhancement to determine the advisory guidelines sentencing range
    because Booker and Shepard v. United States, 
    125 S. Ct. 1254
    (2005), implicitly
    overruled the decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
    (1998),
    that the fact of a prior conviction may be found by the sentencing judge and need not
    be admitted by the defendant nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Here,
    there is a serious question whether Granados-Gonzalez’s guilty plea admitted the fact
    of a prior aggravated felony conviction. But we need not decide that question
    because as a panel we are obliged to follow our numerous post-Booker decisions
    holding that Almendarez-Torres continues to be controlling law on this issue. See,
    e.g., United States v. Bach, 
    400 F.3d 622
    , 634 (8th Cir. 2005).
    Granados-Gonzalez does not separately argue that his sentence is unreasonable
    if, as we have concluded, the district court correctly determined his guidelines
    sentencing range. In any event, we are satisfied from our review of the sentencing
    record that a thirty-month sentence is reasonable under Booker. Accordingly, the
    judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1497

Citation Numbers: 139 F. App'x 775

Filed Date: 7/29/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023