Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20644/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20644-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joel Celedon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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. 03-20643

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOEL CELEDON, also known as Angel

Gonzalez-Soto, also known as Joel

Celedon-Rios, also known as Abel C.

Gonzalez, also known as Abel Soto,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Consolidated with 

No. 03-40758

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOEL CELEDON-RIOS, also known as

ARMANDO DE LA CRUZ-VASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-710-1

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

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

 Case: 03-20644 Document: 0051530144 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2004
No. 03-20643

c/w No. 03-40758

-2-

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

PER CURIAM:*

Joel Celedon, also known as Joel Celedon-Rios, appeals his

guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being found illegally

present in the United States after deportation. 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. Celedon

concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and he raises it for possible

review by the Supreme Court. 

This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S.

at 235. 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).

Celedon does not brief any argument concerning how or why

any potential reduction in his sentence for the 8 U.S.C. § 1326

conviction would have any bearing on the sentence the district

court imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. 

Celedon has thus abandoned his appeal from the revocation of his

 Case: 03-20644 Document: 0051530144 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2004
No. 03-20643

c/w No. 03-40758

-3-

supervised release. United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez,

932 F.2d 1093, 1099 (5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-20644 Document: 0051530144 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/18/2004