UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4744 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ELIAS ECHEVERRIA-MENDEZ, a/k/a Francisco

Javier Tiznado-Partida, a/k/a Martin Pineda,

a/k/a Juan Lopez Pineda, a/k/a Elias

Echevarria, a/k/a Elilas Mendez Echevarria,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (5:03-cr-00048-1)

Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryan Gates, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North

Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

We note that this argument relates only to the 240-month

sentence imposed on Echeverria-Mendez’s conviction for illegal reentry. His offense level for that crime was increased by sixteen

levels based on his prior conviction. His 360-month sentences for

the drug trafficking crimes were based only on the applicable drug

quantities.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Elias Echeverria-Mendez pled guilty to eight counts of a

superseding indictment, which charged him with drug trafficking,

money laundering, and alien re-entry offenses. The district court

sentenced him to 360 months imprisonment on the controlled

substance offenses, and 240 months on the money laundering and

illegal re-entry convictions, all to run concurrent with each

other. On appeal Echeverria-Mendez argues that his sentence was

unlawfully enhanced based on prior convictions.*

In United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005), we considered and rejected an

argument identical to that which Echeverria-Mendez raises on

appeal. We concluded:

It is thus clear that the Supreme Court

continues to hold that the Sixth Amendment (as

well as due process) does not demand that the

mere fact of a prior conviction used as a

basis for a sentencing enhancement be pleaded

in an indictment and submitted to a jury for

proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even were we

to agree with Cheek’s prognostication that it

is only a matter of time before the Supreme

Court overrules Almendarez-Torres [v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 140 L.

Ed. 2d 350 (1998)], we are not free to

overrule or ignore the Supreme Court’s

precedents.
- 3 -

Cheek, 415 F.3d at 352-53; see Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am.

Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989) (“If a precedent of this

Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on

reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of

Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to

this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”).

We therefore affirm Echeverria-Mendez’s sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED