Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Martin FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-27
Citations: 615 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 15-10738
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Martin FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Martin FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10738.
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 27, 2015.
Wifredo A. Ferrer, Kathleen Mary Sal-yer, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Jennifer A. Keene, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter Vincent Birch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, West Palm Beach, FL, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendanh-Appellant.
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Martin Flores appeals his sentence of 41 months of imprisonment following his plea of guilty to reentering the United States illegally after deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Flores challenges the 16-level enhancement of his sentence based on his prior conviction for the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) (Nov. 2014). We affirm.
Flores acknowledges that our decision in United States v. Orduno-Mireles, 405 F.3d 960 (11th Cir.2005), forecloses his argument that his prior conviction cannot be used to enhance his sentence because it was not alleged in his indictment, U.S. Const. Amend. V, or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, U.S. Const. Amend. VI. In Orduno-Mireles we held, based on Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), "that recidivism under section 2L1.2(b)(2) is not a separate element of an offense that the government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" or to allege in an indictment. 405 F.3d at 962. And we are bound by Almen-darez-Torres unless and until it , is overruled by the Supreme Court. Id. at 963; see also United States v. Harris, 741 F.3d 1245, 1250 (11th Cir.2014).
We AFFIRM Flores's sentence.