Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-04-50009/USCOURTS-ca5-04-50009-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvaro Eloy Ruiz-Perez
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50009

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALVARO ELOY RUIZ-PEREZ, also 

known as Luis Perez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-1435-1-PRM

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Alvaro Eloy Ruiz-Perez appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. RuizPerez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction

that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a

separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been

 Case: 04-50009 Document: 005190594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2004
No. 04-50009

-2-

alleged in his indictment. Ruiz-Perez maintains that he pleaded

guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his 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. 

Ruiz-Perez acknowledges that his arguments are 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). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments 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: 04-50009 Document: 005190594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2004