Pacheco-Zepeda v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• concluding that the fact of a prior conviction, whether or not admitted, is an exception to Apprendi
• holding that § 1326(b)(2) as amended does not define a separate crime from § 1326(a)
• concluding that Apprendi did not overrule the holding in United States v. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2
• recognizing that “all prior convictions — not just those admitted on the record — were exempt from Apprendi ’s general rule and, under AlmendarezTorres, may continue to be treated as sentencing factors”
• holding that Almendarez-Torres remains good law after Apprendi and provides that prior convictions, whether or not admitted by the defendant on the record, are sentencing factors rather than elements of the crime
• holding that Almendarez-Torres remains good law after Apprendi
• stating Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998)
• stating Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) did not overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219,140 L.Edüd 350 (1998)