Case: 13-12877 Date Filed: 12/11/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12877
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cr-80047-RSR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GABREL DERECK GARCIA,
a.k.a. Derick Jose Garcia,
a.k.a. Jose Estuardo Garcia-Velasquez,
Defendant - Appellant.
_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 11, 2013)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gabrel Dereck Garcia appeals the 37-month sentence he received after
pleading guilty to one count of illegally reentering the United States after being
Case: 13-12877 Date Filed: 12/11/2013 Page: 2 of 3
deported in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He contends his rights
under the Fifth Amendment were violated because the indictment failed to identify
a prior felony conviction based upon which he was sentenced above the otherwise
applicable statutory maximum. We are bound by Supreme Court precedent to
reject that contention, as Garcia recognizes, and therefore affirm.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), it is illegal for an alien who previously has been
deported to reenter the United States. The statutory maximum sentence for that
offense, by itself, is two years in prison. Subsection (b)(1), however, increases the
statutory maximum penalty to 10 years’ imprisonment if the alien has a prior
felony conviction. Although the indictment against Garcia listed §1326(b)(1), it
included no factual allegation that he had a prior felony conviction. Based upon
that error, Garcia contends that the indictment failed to allege each element of the
offense, in violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Indictment Clause. 1
1
The government argues Garcia waived this challenge by his unconditional guilty plea. As a
general rule, a defendant who knowingly and voluntarily enters an unconditional guilty plea
waives all nonjurisdictional challenges to the indictment. United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317,
1320 (11th Cir. 2003). The indictment’s failure to charge the elements of an offense is a
jurisdictional defect. United States v. Meacham, 626 F.2d 503, 507, 509-10 (5th Cir. 1980); see
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as binding
precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on
September 30, 1981). Garcia’s challenge is that his indictment failed to charge an element of the
crime of which he was convicted, namely the prior-felony requirement under § 1326(b)(1). In
some contexts, we have indicated that omission of a statutory element of an offense that simply
increases the punishment for a crime is not a jurisdictional issue. See McCoy v. United States,
266 F.3d 1245, 1249-54 (11th Cir. 2001). We have never decided as much with respect to the
prior-felony prong of an offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). Despite the government’s
invitation, we need not do so today because we conclude Supreme Court precedent squarely
forecloses Garcia’s challenge.
2
Case: 13-12877 Date Filed: 12/11/2013 Page: 3 of 3
Garcia concedes, however, that the Supreme Court’s decision in
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239, 246-248 (1998), squarely
forecloses his contention by holding the prior-felony element of a § 1326(b)(1)
conviction need not be alleged in the indictment. He also admits we recently have
stated Almendarez-Torres remains binding law until the Supreme Court expressly
overrules it. United States v. Steed, 548 F.3d 961, 979-80 (11th Cir. 2008).
Finally, he concedes that the Supreme Court explicitly refused to do so in Alleyne
v. United States, an opinion issued not six months ago. — U.S. — , 133 S. Ct.
2151, 2160 n.1 (2013).
Accordingly, because the only challenge Garcia raises is squarely foreclosed
by binding precedent, we affirm his conviction and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3