Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40968/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40968-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel Barrigas-Valdovinos
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 11, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40968

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL BARRIGAS-VALDOVINOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-200-1

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Barrigas-Valdovinos (“Barrigas”) appeals his sentence

following his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Prior to his deportation,

Barrigas had been convicted of a felony drug trafficking offense

for which he was sentenced to 180 days of custody, suspended

for three years of probation. Because this prior sentence was

suspended, Barrigas contends that the district court plainly

erred by increasing his offense level for the instant offense

 Case: 03-40968 Document: 0051402590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2004
No. 03-40968

-2-

by 12 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). See also

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.1(A)(iv)) (defining “sentence

imposed”). Given the lack of controlling authority in this

circuit on this issue, any error on the part of the district

court was not “clear or obvious” and could not have been plain

error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64

(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), abrogated in part, Johnson v. United

States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997). 

Barrigas also contends that the sentence-enhancing

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are

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

(2000). Barrigas acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

but he asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by

Apprendi. 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). 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 03-40968 Document: 0051402590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2004