Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier HERNANDEZ-NEGRETE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 136 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 04-41258
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier HERNANDEZ-NEGRETE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 657–658

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier HERNANDEZ-NEGRETE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41258.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 22, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Javier Hernandez-Negrete ("Hernandez") appeals following his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence of imprisonment on one count of being found in the United States, without permission, following removal after having been convicted of an aggravated felony.
For the first time on appeal, Hernandez argues that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional because they do 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 contends that his sentence is invalid, and he argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Hernandez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.
Apprendi did not overrule AlmendarezTorres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; 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).
AFFIRMED.
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.