United States v. Dabeit
- Decided
- October 30, 2000
- Docket
- 00-10065
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,551 timesOverruled on other grounds (verified)Overruled on other grounds (verified) · United States v. Martinez-Paramo
What later courts said
- noting that the Supreme Court in Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, expressly declined to overrule the controlling Almendarez- Torres — United States v. Guillen-Segura (2003)
- explaining that despite Apprendi prior aggravated felony is still a sentencing factor and not an element of the offense of illegal reentry — United States v. Cuellar-Ramirez (2001)
- noting that the Supreme Court in Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, expressly declined to overrule the controlling Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) — United States v. Tovias (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
PER CURIAM:
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Khamis Khalil Dabeit, a Jordanian national who is not a citizen of the United States, was deported from the United States on March 17, 1997. Around June 15, 1999, Dabeit, without receiving approval to reenter the country, was once again found in the United States. Dabeit was charged by indictment with a single count of illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, to which he pled guilty. [1]
Dabeit appeals his sentencing proceeding. He bases his claim on the absence of an invitation for allocution, and on the misapplication of enhanced sentencing through 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), due to an error in viewing his previous conviction as an “aggravated felony.”
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979 (2000)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.