Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-51288/USCOURTS-ca5-03-51288-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abner Pena-Pena
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-51288

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABNER PENA-PENA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-03-CR-199-ALL-H

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Abner Pena-Pena appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after

deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pena-Pena

contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define

separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate

offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in

his indictment. Pena-Pena maintains that he pleaded guilty to an

 Case: 03-51288 Document: 0051487278 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2004
No. 03-51288

-2-

indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that

offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Pena-Pena acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

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). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED. 

 Case: 03-51288 Document: 0051487278 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2004