Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10944/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10944-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Flor Maria Zarate-Ramirez
Appellant

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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10944

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FLOR MARIA ZARATE-RAMIREZ, also

known as Flor Maria Zarate,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Norhern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-74-ALL-L

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

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

PER CURIAM:*

Flor Maria Zarate-Ramirez appeals the sentence imposed

following her guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Zarate-Ramirez argues that the prior conviction that resulted in

her increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in her

indictment. She maintains that she pleaded guilty to an

 Case: 03-10944 Document: 005132580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2004
No. 03-10944

-2-

indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). She argues that her sentence exceeds the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that

offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Zarate-Ramirez acknowledges that her argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

She seeks to preserve her argument for further review. 

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). 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). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

 Case: 03-10944 Document: 005132580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2004