Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40733/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40733-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Guadalupe Marco Antonio Villarreal-Fuentes
Appellant

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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40733

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUADALUPE MARCO ANTONIO VILLARREAL-FUENTES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-118-1

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Guadalupe Marco Antonio Villarreal-Fuentes appeals his

guilty-plea conviction and sentence for violating 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b) by entering the United States, without

permission, following both his conviction for an aggravated

felony and subsequent deportation. Villarreal-Fuentes

acknowledges that his appellate arguments are foreclosed. He

raises the issues to preserve them for possible further review.

 Case: 03-40733 Document: 0051492111 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2004
No. 03-40733

-2-

Villarreal-Fuentes’s first argument, that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

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

466, 490 (2000), is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998). In Almendarez-Torres, the

Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate

offenses. 523 U.S. at 235. The Court held that the sentencing

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

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States

v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Villarreal-Fuentes’s second argument, that the provision of

the written judgment prohibiting him from possessing “any other

dangerous weapon” should be stricken because it conflicts with

the sentence orally imposed by the district court, is foreclosed

by United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 938 (5th Cir.

2003). In Torres-Aguilar, this court held that if a “district

court orally imposes a sentence of supervised release without

stating the conditions applicable to this period of supervision,

the judgment’s inclusion of conditions that are mandatory,

standard, or recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines does not

create a conflict with the oral pronouncement.” Id. The court

further held that if a defendant has been convicted of a felony,

a prohibition from possessing any “dangerous weapon” is a

standard condition of supervised release. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-40733 Document: 0051492111 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2004