Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Alberto CAMACHO-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-22
Citations: 79 F. App'x 59
Docket Number: No. 03-20033
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Alberto CAMACHO-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, CMef Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circmt Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 59–60

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Alberto CAMACHO-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-20033
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circrnt.
Oct. 22, 2003.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlm, II, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Aurora Ruth Bearse, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, CMef Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circmt Judges.
Conference Calendar

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lrns Alberto Camacho-Ramos ("Camacho") appeals the sentence he received following Ms guilty-plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He concedes that this 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 AlmendarezTorres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres "unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it." Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.