Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Francisco GONZALEZ-ARZOLA, also known as Jose Francisco Gonzalez, also known as Jose Angel Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-21
Citations: 95 F. App'x 643
Docket Number: No. 03-41146
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Francisco GONZALEZ-ARZOLA, also known as Jose Francisco Gonzalez, also known as Jose Angel Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 643–643

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Francisco GONZALEZ-ARZOLA, also known as Jose Francisco Gonzalez, also known as Jose Angel Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-41146
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, David Hill Peck, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Francisco Gonzalez-Arzola appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following a nonaggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gonzalez argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Gonzalez 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.