Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41212/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41212-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro Balderas-Roman
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41212

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO BALDERAS-ROMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. B-03-CR-365-1

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Balderas-Roman appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) by attempting

to enter the United States without permission following his conviction of an aggravated felony and subsequent deportation. For the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 9, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 03-41212 Document: 0051391376 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2004
No. 03-41212

-2-

first time on appeal, Balderas argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is

unconstitutional on its face because it treats a prior conviction

of a felony or aggravated felony as a sentencing factor and not as

an element of the offense. He acknowledges, however, that this argument is contrary to Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224 (1998), which holds that enhanced penalties under § 1326(b) are

sentencing provisions, not elements of a separate offense. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule AlmendarezTorres, and we must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the

Supreme Court determines to overrule it.” United States v. Dabeit,

231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Balderas’s conviction and sentence are therefore AFFIRMED.

Balderas also asserts that we should remand for correction of

a clerical error in the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. Because this argument does not fall within the

scope of Balderas’s sentence-appeal waiver, we remand for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to reflect that the offense

of conviction was attempted illegal reentry rather than being

“found in” the United States illegally. See United States v.

Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 531 (5th Cir. 2000). 

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF CORRECTING

CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT.

 Case: 03-41212 Document: 0051391376 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2004