Filed: Sep. 04, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN No. 06-13700 CLERK _ D.C. Docket No. 05-00524-CR-T-17EAJ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FELIX REYES-PARADA, a.k.a Daniel Reyes-Parada, a.k.a. Daniel Reyes, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (September 4, 2007) Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and CA
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN No. 06-13700 CLERK _ D.C. Docket No. 05-00524-CR-T-17EAJ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FELIX REYES-PARADA, a.k.a Daniel Reyes-Parada, a.k.a. Daniel Reyes, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (September 4, 2007) Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and CAR..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
___________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 06-13700
CLERK
___________________________
D.C. Docket No. 05-00524-CR-T-17EAJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FELIX REYES-PARADA,
a.k.a Daniel Reyes-Parada,
a.k.a. Daniel Reyes,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_______________________
(September 4, 2007)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Reyes-Parada was convicted of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(1), and
was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment after the district court applied the
sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Reyes-Parada’s
sole contention is that the enhancement should not have been applied because the
2000 California conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, upon which the
enhancement was based, was not a “conviction for a felony” within the meaning of
the guideline. That contention is foreclosed by the conviction in this case itself,
which was based on Reyes-Parada’s guilty plea to the indictment which charged,
among other things, that he “previously had been convicted of a felony offense, to
wit:” the California assault with a deadly weapon offense.
Because the guilty plea and conviction based on it, which have not been
challenged, establish that Reyes-Parada’s 2000 California conviction is a felony,
we reject his contention that he should have been sentenced as though it were not.
AFFIRMED.
2