United States v. Delacruz-Soto, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 1625226 (10th Cir. July 12, 2005) (defendant cannot collaterally attack aggravated felony prior conviction during illegal reentry prosecution).

United States v. Serrano-Dominguez, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 1030443 (May 4, 2005) (affirming illegal reentry sentence and rejecting claim that use of the Sentencing Guidelines in sentencing is unconstitutional in light of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) and United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005)).

United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 1083731 (7th Cir. May 4, 2005) (where defense counsel failed to object to sentence error through accidental oversight, rather than a deliberate decision, defendant forfeited the claim - rather than waived it - and thus could assert plain error on appeal).

United States v. Rodriguez-Ceballos, ___ F.3d ___ 2005 WL 1131672 (8th Cir. May 16, 2005) (because the district court's application of Guidelines affected defendant's substantial rights, and sentence seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, the illegal reentry sentence was vacated).

United States v. Lechuga-Ponce, ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. May 17, 2005) (sentence for illegal reentry after deportation vacated for a limited remand so district court may determine whether it would have sentenced defendant differently had it known that the US Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/042986p.pdf

United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen, __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. March 30, 2005) (sentence enhancement upon illegal reentry following conviction of crime of violence proper, even where crime of violence occurred more than 10 years prior to illegal reentry).

United States v. Orduno-Mireles, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 768134 (11th Cir. April 6, 2005) (vacating conviction after illegal reentry does not eliminate the conviction for purposes of illegal reentry sentence enhancement for prior conviction of an aggravated felony).

A defendant would be prejudiced in having the jury hear evidence, argument and instructions on, and to deliberate on sentencing issues simultaneous with the issue of guilt of innocence.   See U.S. v. Rush, 807 F. Supp. 1263, 1266 (D. La. 1992) ("The government alleges that the State of Louisiana lost $10 million because of the defendants activities. The government is free to prove during trial specific monetary harm, but such allegation is not necessary in the indictment, and, in fact, its inclusion could prejudice the defendant.") See also U.S. v.

As all may know by now, a five-vote majority held the guidelines unconstitutional to the extent that they require judges to impose sentences based on judicial findings of fact which are more punitive than the sentences they could have been imposed based only on facts found by the jury. A somewhat different five-vote majority held that the remedy to the constitutional problem to be the striking of the mandatory provision of the guidelines, thus turning them into advisory standards which must nevertheless be considered in every case.

United States v. Vela-Robles, 397 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2005) (conviction for illegal reentry after deportation affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was an insufficient factual basis for   defendants requested jury instruction).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0310691p.pdf