Court Opinion

ID: 26732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:58:29+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:27.640334
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-10964
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE LOPEZ-TORRES,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 3:00-CR-419-1-X
                       --------------------
                         February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Jorge Lopez-Torres appeals the 57-month term of imprisonment

imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in

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

§ 1326.   Lopez-Torres contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses.   He argues that

the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment.

Lopez-Torres notes that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10964
                                  -2-

recited only facts and elements supporting a charge of simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and argues that his sentence

exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be

imposed for that offense.    Lopez-Torres acknowledges that his

argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but

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, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001).    Lopez-

Torres’s argument is foreclosed.    The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

     In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has

filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in

the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s

judgment.   The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.   The

motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED.    The Government need

not file an appellee’s brief.

     AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY
     AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.