Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40496/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40496-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Noe Mendoza-Barcenas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40186

c/w Nos. 03-40187 & 03-40496

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NOE MENDOZA-BARCENAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-611-1

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Noe Mendoza-Barcenas appeals his guilty-plea conviction

for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation and

the revocation of his supervised release and probation. He

asserts that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional

on their face and as applied to him. He also argues that the

prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an

 Case: 03-40496 Document: 0051498495 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2004
Nos. 03-40186 c/w 03-40496 & 03-40187

-2-

element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in the indictment.

Because a challenge under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000) is not jurisdictional, Mendoza-Barcenas may not

present these claims in an appeal following the revocation of

supervised release. See United States v. Longoria, 298 F.3d 367,

372 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc); United States v. Moody, 277 F.3d

719, 720-21 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831,

833 n.1 (5th Cir. 1996). Regardless, Mendoza-Barcenas

acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but he

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi

did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-

90, 496. This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and

until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” 

United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-40496 Document: 0051498495 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2004