Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto SOLORENZO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-20
Citations: 71 F. App'x 410
Docket Number: No. 03-40062
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto SOLORENZO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 410–411

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto SOLORENZO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-40062.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 20, 2003.
Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Roberto Solorenzo-Torres appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) by being found in the United States, without permission, following his conviction for an aggravated felony and subsequent deportation.
For the first time on appeal, SolorenzoTorres argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it treats a prior conviction for a felony or aggravated felony as a sentencing factor and not as an element of the offense. He asks us to vacate his conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to reflect a conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand his case for resentencing.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Solorenzo-Torres acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, but 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 Almendarez-Torres. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.