US v. Beltran Morales-Roblero, No. 09-4506 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4506 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BELTRAN MORALES-ROBLERO, a/k/a a/k/a Enrique Bartolon-Bartolon, Rutilo Bartolon-Bartolon, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00092-LHT-1) Submitted: January 5, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ross H. Richardson, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Beltran Morales-Roblero pleaded guilty to reentering the United States without permission after having previously been deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). court sentenced Morales-Roblero to The district forty-six imprisonment and Morales-Roblero now appeals. months of Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, Morales-Roblero argues that § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional because these sections increase the statutory maximum sentence for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) on the basis of a defendant s prior criminal convictions. As Morales-Roblero on raises this argument appeal, we review for plain error. for the first time Therefore, Morales-Roblero must establish (1) error (2) that was plain, and (3) affected his substantial rights. 725, 732 (1993). correctly See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. We find no error, however, as Morales-Roblero concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
