USA v. Francisco Martin Flores, No. 15-10738 (11th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-10738 Date Filed: 08/27/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-10738 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60303-RLR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO MARTIN FLORES, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (August 27, 2015) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 15-10738 Date Filed: 08/27/2015 Page: 2 of 2 Francisco Martin Flores appeals his sentence of 41 months of imprisonment following his plea of guilty to reentering the United States illegally after deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Flores challenges the 16-level enhancement of his sentence based on his prior conviction for the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (Nov. 2014). We affirm. Flores acknowledges that our decision in United States v. Orduno-Mireles, 405 F.3d 960 (11th Cir. 2005), forecloses his argument that his prior conviction cannot be used to enhance his sentence because it was not alleged in his indictment, U.S. Const. Amend. V, or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, U.S. Const. Amend. VI. In Orduno-Mireles we held, based on Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), “that recidivism under section 2L1.2(b)(2) is not a separate element of an offense that the government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt” or to allege in an indictment. 405 F.3d at 962. And we are bound by Almendarez-Torres unless and until it is overruled by the Supreme Court. Id. at 963; see also United States v. Harris, 741 F.3d 1245, 1250 (11th Cir. 2014). We AFFIRM Flores’s sentence. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.