I. Whether all facts — including the fact of a prior conviction — that increase a defendant's statutory maximum must be pleaded in the indictment and either admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?

Subsidiary questions:

a. Did the district court err in sentencing Mendez to a term of supervised release greater than one year for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326?

b. Are the statutory enhancement provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) unconstitutional because Congress unequivocally intended the enhancements to be sentencing factors, not elements of separate offenses; but under this Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), such a scheme is unconstitutional?

c. Whether Mendez's guilty plea was involuntary and taken in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 because Mendez was not admonished that the prior felony provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) stated an essential offense element that Mendez had the right to have the government prove, and a jury find, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Whether all facts - including the fact of a prior conviction - that increase a defendant's statutory maximum must be pleaded in the indictment and either admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?