Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10880/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10880-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andres Gonzalez-Clemente
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10880

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRES GONZALEZ-CLEMENTE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-28-P-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Gonzalez-Clemente appeals his conviction and sentence

for illegal reentry of an aggravated felon after deportation, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. His argument that the district

court erred in determining his criminal history category is

without merit. The court’s finding that Gonzalez had been

convicted of the assault charge in ¶ 40 of the presentence report

is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous. See

 Case: 03-10880 Document: 0051105586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2004
No. 03-10880

-2-

United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163, 168 (5th Cir. 2002);

United States v. Fitzgerald, 89 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1996).

Equally unavailing is Gonzalez’s argument that

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998) has

been overruled or cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466, 490 (2000), an argument he admits is foreclosed. 

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). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-10880 Document: 0051105586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2004