United States v. Jimenez-Banegas, 790 F.3d 253

Mauro Edulio Jiménez-Banegas, a Honduran national, repeatedly reentered the U.S. after deportations; he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Jiménez had a 2004 conviction (attempted third-degree sexual abuse) for which he was deported and which the government treats as an aggravated felony.
The 2012 one-count indictment cited 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2) but did not explicitly recite that a prior aggravated-felony conviction preceded deportation.
At plea and sentencing proceedings Jiménez was informed he faced up to 20 years under § 1326(b)(2); he admitted the 2004 conviction and did not move to withdraw his plea.
The PSR applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (prior conviction for a crime of violence) and, after a 3-level acceptance reduction, produced a Guidelines range of 57–71 months; the court sentenced him to 57 months.
Jiménez appealed, arguing that imposing the § 1326(b)(2) enhanced statutory maximum (and the related enhancements) violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because the prior aggravated-felony conviction was not alleged in the indictment or submitted to a jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prior aggravated-felony conviction must be alleged in the indictment or proved to a jury before applying § 1326(b)(2)’s 20-year statutory maximum	Government: Almendarez-Torres allows courts to treat prior convictions as sentencing facts; indictment need not list them	Jiménez: Apprendi and later cases require jury findings for facts that increase statutory maximums; indictment omission violates Fifth and Sixth Amendments	Court: Almendarez-Torres remains binding; prior conviction is a sentencing/recidivist fact and need not be alleged or jury-proved; affirmed
Whether omission of the aggravated-felony allegation in the indictment or prosecution version invalidated the Guidelines enhancement and sentence	Government: indictment cited § 1326(b)(2) and defendant was on notice and admitted the conviction	Jiménez: absence of explicit allegation meant he lacked proper notice and procedural protections	Court: Defendant was advised of the enhanced penalty, admitted the conviction; enhancement and sentence proper

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior conviction is a sentencing/recidivist fact and need not be alleged in the indictment)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, except the fact of a prior conviction)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (extends Apprendi to mandatory minimums but acknowledges Almendarez-Torres exception for prior convictions)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (discusses Almendarez-Torres and notes it remains controlling on prior-conviction exception)
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (panel courts must follow directly controlling Supreme Court precedent even if tensions exist with later decisions)
United States v. Rodríguez, 759 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2014) (First Circuit recognizes Almendarez-Torres remains good law)