Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-02-41751/USCOURTS-ca5-02-41751-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rene Osvaldo Salinas-Romo
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

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. 02-41751

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RENE OSVALDO SALINAS-ROMO,

Defendant-Appellant,

 

Consolidated with 

No. 03-40007

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RENE OSBALDO SALINAS-ROMO, also known as Arnoldo Guzman-Romo,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-413-ALL

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

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

PER CURIAM:*

 Case: 02-41751 Document: 005138794 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2004
No. 02-41751

c/w No. 03-40007

-2-

R. 47.5.4.

Rene Osvaldo Salinas-Romo appeals his guilty-plea conviction

and sentence for being found illegally present in the United

States after deportation as well as the subsequent revocation of

a term of supervised release from an earlier conviction. He

argues, pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),

that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(1) and (2) are elements of the offense, not sentence

enhancements, making those provisions unconstitutional. Salinas

concedes that this argument is foreclosed and he raises it for

possible review by the Supreme Court. 

This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). We must follow the precedent

set in 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) (internal quotation and citation

omitted).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 02-41751 Document: 005138794 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2004