Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41128/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41128-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Magallanes-Nieto
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41128

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE MAGALLANES-NIETO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-03-CR-250-1 

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Magallanes-Nieto (Magallanes) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for being unlawfully present in the

United States following deportation. He argues that his prior

Texas state conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle

was not an “aggravated felony” and, therefore, did not warrant an

eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). He also

contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict

and sentence him because the felony and aggravated felony

 Case: 03-41128 Document: 005184898 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2004
No. 03-41128

-2-

provisions in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(b)(1) & (b)(2) are

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000).

Magallanes concedes that these arguments are foreclosed but

seeks to preserve further review by the Supreme Court. This

court has previously held that a conviction for unauthorized use

of a motor vehicle is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16

and will support the aggravated felony enhancement in § 2L1.2. 

United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez, 169 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir.

1999). We are bound by this court’s precedent absent an

intervening Supreme Court decision or a subsequent en banc

decision. See United States v. Garcia Abrego, 141 F.3d 142, 151

n.1 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Magallanes’ Apprendi argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 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). 

Accordingly, Magallanes’ conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-41128 Document: 005184898 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2004