Case ID: f-appx_79/html/0623-01.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. Rolando OYEVIDES-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-40515.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2003.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, David Hill Peck, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Mark Michael Dowd, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Brownsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Jeffrey L. Wilde, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM

Rolando Oyevides-Jimenez 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, Oyevides-Jimenez argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1826(b)(1) & (2) are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Oyevides-Jimenez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in 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). Oyevides-Jimenez’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.