Court Opinion

ID: 25797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:43:39+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:29.721151
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                           No. 01-40180
                         Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN JAIME GONZALEZ HUITRON, also known as Jaime Espinoza
Guiterrez,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Eastern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 1:00-CR-91-ALL
                        --------------------
                          October 29, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Juan Jaime Gonzalez Huitron appeals the 57-month sentence

imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found

in the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326.   He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in

his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element

of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment.

     Huitron acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the

Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
                           No. 01-40180
                                -2-

523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for

Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

     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), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001).   Huitron’s

argument is foreclosed.   The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.