Case ID: f-appx_86/html/0773-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus GONZALES-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-40588.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 17, 2004.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, David Hill Peck, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Myrna G. Montemayor, Houston, TX, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jesus Gonzales-Garcia (Gonzales) appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, Gonzales argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1826(b)(1) & (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Gonzales acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

Gonzales also challenges a condition of supervised release set forth in the written judgment that prohibits him from possessing “any other dangerous weapon.” Gonzales argues that this provision must be deleted from the written judgment because the district court did not mention the condition when it orally pronounced sentence. We find no error in the written judgment. This issue now is also foreclosed. See United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 935-37 (5th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.