Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41133/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41133-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Javier Aciain-Porras
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-41133

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO JAVIER ACIAIN-PORRAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-03-CR-68-1

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Javier Aciain-Porras appeals from his guilty-plea

conviction for being illegally present in the United States

following a previous deportation. For the first time on appeal,

Aciain-Porras argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional

on its face and as applied in his case because it does not

require the fact of a prior felony or aggravated felony

conviction to be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a

reasonable doubt. He thus contends that his sentence is invalid

 Case: 03-41133 Document: 0051149816 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2004
No. 03-41133

-2-

and argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Aciain-Porras acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed

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

Accordingly, as Aciain-Porras’s sole argument on appeal is

foreclosed, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-41133 Document: 0051149816 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2004