Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40862/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40862-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andres Armando Rodriguez-Garcia
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40862

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRES ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, also known as 

Armando Sustaita-Saenz,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-03-CR-103-1

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

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

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Armando Rodriguez-Garcia 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. Rodriguez-Garcia

 Case: 03-40862 Document: 0051128843 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2004
No. 03-40862

-2-

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).

Rodriguez-Garcia argues that a conflict exists between the

district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and the written

judgment because the written judgment contains a condition of

supervised release prohibiting the possession of a dangerous

weapon, but at the sentencing hearing, the court did not mention

this prohibition. For the reasons outlined in United States v.

Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 937-38 (5th Cir. 2003), we conclude

that the district court’s omission of the dangerous-weapon

prohibition during the oral pronouncement of sentence did not

create a conflict with the sentence set forth in the judgment. 

Thus, this issue is also foreclosed. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-40862 Document: 0051128843 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2004