Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11090/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11090-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Raul Cordero-Lucio
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-11090

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE RAUL CORDERO-LUCIO, also

known as Joe Raul Cordero,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-54-ALL-C

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Raul Cordero-Lucio appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of sexual abuse of a minor

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a). Cordero-Lucio argues that

under the reasoning of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), a fact must be alleged in the indictment before it may be

used to increase the maximum guideline sentence. Cordero-Lucio

acknowledges that his contention is foreclosed by this court’s

 Case: 03-11090 Document: 0051205915 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2004
No. 03-11090

-2-

decision in United States v. Randle, 304 F.3d 373 (5th Cir.

2002).

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. 

Cordero-Lucio acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

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

into doubt by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including

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: 03-11090 Document: 0051205915 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2004