Defendant Roberto Rodriguez-Vasquez pled guilty to one count of
violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326, reentry of a deported alien. Defendant appeals a
sentence enhancement imposed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) for illegal
reentry after a prior deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony.
In February of 1996, Defendant was charged and convicted of a second-degree felony,
namely, violating Utah Code Annotated § 58-37-8(1)(a)(ii) by
knowingly and intentionally distributing cocaine. Defendant does not challenge,
nor can there be any serious question, that distribution of a controlled substance
is a felony under both federal and Utah state law and therefore qualifies as an
"aggravated felony" under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B) and 1326. See 21
U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1); Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-8(1)(a)(ii). Instead, Defendant argues that
he was convicted of distributing what he claims was a counterfeit substance and
his penalty under state law is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
This is not the proper forum for Defendant to challenge the validity of his
underlying state conviction. See Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 496-97
(1994); United States v. Simpson, 94 F.3d 1373, 1380 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,
U.S. , 117 S. Ct. 411 (1996). Because Defendant does not complain of a
violation of the right to counsel or in any other way challenge the
constitutionality of his state conviction, we affirm Defendant's 8 U.S.C. § 1326
sentence and conviction.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
*. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERTO RODRIQUEZ-VASQUEZ,
a/k/a Roberto Rodriguez-Martinez,
a/k/a Blas R. Valdez, a/k/a Blas
Rincon-Valdez, a/k/a Rogelio Medina,
a/k/a Francisco Valdez, a/k/a Miguel
Rincon-Valdez,
Defendant - Appellant.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case
is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.
| Keyword |
Case |
Docket |
Date: Filed /
Added |
(11775 bytes)
(7988 bytes)
Comments to: WebMaster,
ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: July 9, 1998.
HTML markup © 1998, Washburn University School of Law.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/1998/07/97-4139.htm.