Court Opinion

ID: 24923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:28:46+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:22.448231
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                           No. 00-41405
                         Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

                               versus

JOSÉ CASTANEDA-GUTIERREZ,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. L-00-CR-801-ALL
                       --------------------
                           July 19, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     José Castaneda-Gutierrez appeals the 46-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.

     Castaneda-Gutierrez acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-41405
                               -2-

the issue for Supreme Court review in light of 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).

Castaneda-Gutierrez’s argument is foreclosed.   The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.