Filed: Apr. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50773 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MAXIMINO CASTILLO-ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-181-1-DB - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Maximino Castillo-Rojas appeals his sentence for false claim of citizenship and illegal reentry. Castillo argues th
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50773 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MAXIMINO CASTILLO-ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-181-1-DB - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Maximino Castillo-Rojas appeals his sentence for false claim of citizenship and illegal reentry. Castillo argues tha..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50773
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAXIMINO CASTILLO-ROJAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-00-CR-181-1-DB
--------------------
April 12, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maximino Castillo-Rojas appeals his sentence for false claim
of citizenship and illegal reentry. Castillo argues that his
prior felony conviction needed to be submitted to the jury to
enhance his sentence beyond the two-year statutory maximum for a
§ 1326 conviction. Castillo does not appeal his sentence or
conviction for false claim of citizenship.
Castillo’s argument is foreclosed by Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523
U.S. 224 (1998). In
Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235, the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-50773
-2-
United States Supreme Court held that § 1326(b)’s enhancement
provision is a sentencing factor and not a separate criminal
offense. In Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), the
Supreme Court held that “[o]ther 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 a
jury, and proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.” 120 S. Ct. at 2362-
63. Thus, Castillo’s prior felony conviction did not have to be
submitted to a jury to enhance his sentence beyond the statutory
maximum.
AFFIRMED.