United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 05-1481
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Western District of Arkansas.
Jorge Amezcua-Campos,                   *
                                        * [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: July 29, 2005
                                Filed: August 8, 2005
                                 ___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
                         ___________

PER CURIAM.

        Jorge Amezcua-Campos appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty
to illegal reentry. He argues the district court’s1 finding (under advisory Sentencing
Guidelines) that his prior conviction resulted in a 12-level increase in his offense
level violated the Sixth Amendment. While Amezcua-Campos does not dispute the
existence of the conviction, he argues based on United States v. Booker, 

(2005), that a jury must decide whether and to what extent the conviction
justified an enhancement. We have previously concluded, however, that a sentencing

      1
        The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
judge may find not only the existence of a prior conviction, but also whether the
conviction is one of the types qualifying for a sentence enhancement. See United
States v. Kempis-Bonola, 

, 702-03 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 

(2002). This principle was unchanged by Booker. Cf. United States v. Marcussen,

, 984 (8th Cir. 2005) (rejecting argument that nature of prior conviction
is to be treated differently from fact of prior conviction).. Accordingly, we affirm.
                         ______________________________




                                         -2-