Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel ORTIZ-ARELLANO, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel Ortiz-Arellano, also known as Jose Ramos-Ochoa, also known as Antonio Aguilar-Ochoa, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-18
Citations: 87 F. App'x 947
Docket Number: Nos. 03-41042, 03-41114
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel ORTIZ-ARELLANO, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel Ortiz-Arellano, also known as Jose Ramos-Ochoa, also known as Antonio Aguilar-Ochoa, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 947–947

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel ORTIZ-ARELLANO, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel Ortiz-Arellano, also known as Jose Ramos-Ochoa, also known as Antonio Aguilar-Ochoa, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 03-41042, 03-41114
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2004.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Victor Manuel Ortiz-Arellano contends for the first time on appeal that the aggravated felony enhancement found in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 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 asserts that Almendarez-Torres has been called into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). He seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED and the district court's judgment for revocation of supervised release is also 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.