Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro OCHOA-CORNEJO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-23
Citations: 101 F. App'x 496
Docket Number: No. 03-41549
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro OCHOA-CORNEJO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro OCHOA-CORNEJO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-41549
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 23, 2004.
Mitchel Neuroek, Laredo, TX, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal, Public Defender, Jeffrey L. Wilde, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Ochoa-Cornejo (Ochoa) appeals his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, Ochoa argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Ochoa 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 seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court 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). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.