Court further held that the date of removal contemplated by § 1326(b)(1) is the date of the alien’s “physical” removal. Id. Thus, the district court did not err when it applied a sentence enhancement under § 1326(b)(1) using a reinstated removal. The Government concedes that the district court committed Apprendi error when the court used a 2004 removal in its application of § 1326(b)(1) because the 2004 removal was neither proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt nor admitted by Lucatero-Campos. See United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.2006). Nevertheless, we find it was harmless error because the record contains overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence of the 2004 removal. See United States v. Zepeda-Martinez, 470 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir.2006) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). The record reveals that the
holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis holding that error is not harmless if the defendant contested the omitted element and raised evidence to support a contrary finding holding that instructional error on missing element is harmless if no rational jury could have found the defendant  guilty of violating the statute without also making the proper finding as to the missing element holding that when the jury finds facts that are so closely related to the omitted element that no rational jury could find those facts without also finding the omitted element this exercise amounts to the functional equivalent of the omitted element holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis