Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Humberto MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, 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 644
Docket Number: No. 03-41169
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Humberto MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 644–644

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Humberto MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-41169
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richard Bruce Gould, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Humberto Martinez-Martinez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being found illegally present in the United States after deportation. He argues, pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are elements of the offense, not sentence enhancements, making those provisions unconstitutional. Martinez concedes that this argument is foreclosed and he raises it for possible review by the Supreme Court.
This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). We must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres "unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it." United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000) (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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set for in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.