V. The Correct Sentencing Range is 51-63 Months Under the 2003 Guidelines 22 CONCLUSION 23 EFTA00156338 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) 4 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) 4 Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) 15 Peugh v.

ing Criminal Penalties for Failure to Register as Required Under Sex Offender or Other Criminal Registration Statutes. 33 ALR6th 91. Application of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403,

conviction to determine the present punishment or immigration consequences would encounter logistical and constitutional obstacles. Id. (noting an Apprendi problem and "daunting practical difficulties and potential unfairness"). None of those concerns is present here, where the relevant facts will be p

conviction to determine the present punishment or immigration consequences would encounter logistical and constitutional obstacles. Id. (noting an Apprendi problem and "daunting practical difficulties and potential unfairness"). None of those concerns is present here, where the relevant facts will be p

conviction to determine the present punishment or immigration consequences would encounter logistical and constitutional obstacles. Id. (noting an Apprendi problem and "daunting practical difficulties and potential unfairness"). None of those concerns is present here, where the relevant facts will be p

conviction to determine the present punishment or immigration consequences would encounter logistical and constitutional obstacles. Id. (noting an Apprendi problem and "daunting practical difficulties and potential unfairness"). None of those concerns is present here, where the relevant facts will be p

r conviction to determine the present punishment or immigration consequence would encounter logistical and constitutional obstacles. Id. (noting an Apprendi problem and "daunting practical difficulties and potential unfairness"). None of those concerns are present here, where the relevant facts will be

U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 56, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), Ring I. Arizona, and related Supreme Court precedents, urges us reach a different conclusion. In Apprendi New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 120 S.Ct. 348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the Su- preme Court emphasized that "Ulf a State makes an increase in a defendants