Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40994/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40994-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fernando Cesar Monteiro-De Oliveira
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

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. 03-40994

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FERNANDO CESAR MONTEIRO-DE OLIVEIRA,

Defendant-Appellant,

 

Consolidate With

No. 03-40999

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FERNANDO MONTEIRO-DE OLIVEIRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-285-1

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Case: 03-40994 Document: 005179083 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2004
No. 03-40994 c/w

No. 03-40999

-2-

R. 47.5.4.

Fernando Cesar Monteiro-De Oliveira 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. Monteiro-De Oliveira contends that the “felony”

and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and

(2) are unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his

conviction must be reduced to one under the lesser included

offense found in 8 U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be

reformed to reflect a conviction only under that provision, and

his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for

resentencing to no more than two years’ imprisonment and one year

of supervised release. 

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. 

Monteiro-De Oliveira acknowledges that his arguments are

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 arguments 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

 Case: 03-40994 Document: 005179083 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2004
No. 03-40994 c/w

No. 03-40999

-3-

“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: 03-40994 Document: 005179083 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2004