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 Valdez-Cejas to a term of imprisonment greater than two years 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 Valdez-Cejas's guilty plea was involuntary and taken in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 because Valdez-Cejas was not admonished that the prior felony provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) stated an essential offense element that Valdez-Cejas 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?