Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin MARTINEZ-ARRATIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-22
Citations: 78 F. App'x 416
Docket Number: No. 03-40414
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin MARTINEZ-ARRATIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 416–417

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin MARTINEZ-ARRATIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-40414.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 22, 2003.
James Lee Turner, Jeffery Alan Babcock, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, H Michael Soko-Iow, Cesar A. Amador, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Martin Martinez-Arratia (Martinez) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being an alien unlawfully found in the United States after deportation. He argues for the first time on appeal that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it does not require the prior aggravated felony conviction used to increase his sentence to be proven as an element of the offense. He contends that his conviction should be reformed to the lesser included offense in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and that he should be resentenced to no more than two years of imprisonment.
Martinez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in 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 in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
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). Martinez's argument is foreclosed. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.