Case ID: f-appx_101/html/0509-01.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. Maria Isabel PEREA-DE JARA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-41420.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 23, 2004.
    Mitchel Neurock, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Laredo, TX, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Christina Arellano-Villarreal, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Maria Isabel Perea-De Jara appeals from her guilty-plea conviction for attempting to illegally reenter the United States after being previously deported subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. For the first time on appeal, Perea-De Jara argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in her case because it does not require the fact of a prior felony or aggravated felony conviction to be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. She thus contends that her sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Perea-De Jara acknowledges that her argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). She seeks to preserve her argument for further 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). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Accordingly, as Perea-De Jara’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed, the district court’s judgment 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.