US v. Jose Trejo, No. 14-4578 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4578 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSE NOEL VILLALTA TREJO, a/k/a Elmer Rodriguez Vialta, a/k/a Jose Noel Villailta Trejo, a/k/a Jose Trejo, a/k/a Cleto Federico Trinin Hernandez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00061-TSE-1) Submitted: March 3, 2015 Decided: March 10, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Gul Raza Gharbieh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Adam Ptashkin, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Noel Villalta Trejo appeals his 30-month sentence, imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012). Trejo’s prior conviction for an aggravated after In light of felony, he was subject to the 20-year statutory maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) (2012). On appeal, Trejo claims that 8 U.S.C. “§ 1326(b) defines a separate, aggravated offense, and that, because [his] indictment did not allege a prior conviction, it charged only a violation of § 1326(a).” (Appellant’s Br. at 8). He therefore argues that his 30-month sentence exceeds the 2-year statutory maximum set forth in § 1326(a), in violation of “his due process, grand jury, and jury Amendments.” This foreclosed Torres v. trial rights under the Fifth and Sixth (Id.). claim, by as the United acknowledged Supreme States, 523 Court’s U.S. by Trejo, decision 224, 226-27 is in squarely Almendarez- (1998). See United States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 124 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Almendarez-Torres remains good law, and we may not disregard it unless and until the Supreme Court holds to the contrary.”), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 942 (2015); United States v. Graham, 711 F.3d 445, 455 (4th Cir.) (“[W]e are bound by Almendarez- 2 Torres unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.”), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 449 (2013). Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before this 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.
