Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40620/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40620-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcos Tulio Madrid
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40620

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCOS TULIO MADRID,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-1654-ALL

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

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

PER CURIAM:*

Marcos Tulio Madrid appeals his conviction and sentence

for illegal reentry. He argues that the district court plainly

erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for simple

possession of crack as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), when

that same offense was punishable only as a misdemeanor under 

 Case: 03-40620 Document: 005190359 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2004
No. 03-40620

-2-

federal law. This issue, however, is foreclosed by United States

v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 1997), and, therefore,

Madrid has not demonstrated plain error. 

Madrid concedes that the issue whether the “felony” and

“aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1)&(2) are

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224 (1998), and he raises it solely to preserve its

further review by the Supreme Court. Apprendi did not overrule

Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90. This court

must therefore follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.

2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 03-40620 Document: 005190359 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2004