Case ID: f-appx_95/html/0581-02.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. Jose MAGALLANES-NIETO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-41128.
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 21, 2004.
    
      Mitchel Neurock, US Attorney’s Office, Laredo, TX, James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Miguel A. Nogueras, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendantr-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jose Magallanes-Nieto (Magallanes) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. He argues that his prior Texas state conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was not an “aggravated felony” and, therefore, did not warrant an eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). He also contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him because the felony and aggravated felony provisions in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(b)(1) & (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Magallanes concedes that these arguments are foreclosed but seeks to preserve further review by the Supreme Court. This court has previously held that a conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 and will support the aggravated felony enhancement in § 2L1.2. United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez, 169 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir.1999). We are bound by this court’s precedent absent an intervening Supreme Court decision or a subsequent en banc decision. See United States v. Garcia Abrego, 141 F.3d 142, 151 n. 1 (5th Cir.1998).

Magallanes’ Apprendi argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). Accordingly, Magallanes’ conviction and sentence are 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.