United States v. Contreras-Hernandez, 628 F.3d 1169

Contreras-Hernandez, an alien, was convicted at trial of being in the U.S. after a prior deportation (8 U.S.C. §1326).
Base offense level 8; Guidelines add 16 levels if the prior deportation followed a felony that was a crime of violence, raising to 24.
He had a prior California conviction for soliciting murder (Cal. Penal Code §653f(b)); sentence to be served affected his range.
The Guidelines 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) upgrade applies if the prior felony was a crime of violence; the district court imposed the maximum within the range, resulting in 63 months.
Statutory maximum increased from 2 to 20 years because solicitation of murder was treated as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. §1326(a),(b)(2).
The district court considered his motive (return to recover his son) and sentenced at the bottom end of the range, after defense and prosecutorial recommendations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether solicitation of murder is a crime of violence.	Contreras-Hernandez argues solicitation is not a crime of violence.	Contreras-Hernandez asserts solicitation lacks listed enumerated offenses.	Solicitation of murder is a crime of violence under §2L1.2 and the catchall.
Whether the district court adequately considered §3553(a) mitigating factors.	The mitigating motive for illegal reentry should have reduced sentence.	Court considered personal circumstances; need not enumerate every factor.	Court satisfied §3553(a) consideration; sentence within range supported by reasoning.
Whether the indictment adequately supports the §1326(b)(2) enhancement without stating the deportation date.	Apprendi/Blakely require explicit deportation date in the indictment.	Indictment and case law allow sentence enhancement if date can be determined at sentencing.	Indictment sufficient to support enhancement; date not required in the charging instrument.
Whether Apprendi applies to judicial fact-finding increasing the maximum under §1326(b)(2).	Judicial fact-finding to impose 20-year max violates Apprendi.	Courts have consistently upheld; Almendarez-Torres controls.	Apprendi challenge foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres and Beng-Salazar.

United States v. Cox, 74 F.3d 189 (9th Cir. 1996) (solicitation of murder qualifies as crime of violence under the catchall)
Prakash v. Holder, 579 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2009) (aggravated felony definition for §2L1.2 ties to §1101(a)(43))
United States v. Dolt, 27 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 1994) (solicitation to traffic controlled substances not a controlled-substance offense for career offender)
United States v. Cornelio-Pena, 435 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2006) (solicitation to commit burglary deemed violent felony for §1326/§2L1.2)
United States v. Mendoza-Zaragoza, 567 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 2009) (indictment with removal date supports §1326 enhancement)
United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 569 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2009) (identical form indictment still supports §1326(b) enhancement)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (recognizes non-jury fact finding for sentence enhancements)
United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2006) (confirms non-Jury sentencing precedents in the circuit)
United States v. Shumate, 329 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2003) (solicitation of delivery of controlled substance supports violent offense)
Prakash v. Holder, 579 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2009) (defines crime of violence for 2L1.2/1101(a)(43))