Court Opinion

ID: 28056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:18:30+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:08.589953
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 01-51179
                         Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IRIS DELGADO-CASTILLO,

                                          Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                   USDC No. DR-01-CR-362-1-FB
                       --------------------
                           June 19, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Iris Delgado-Castillo appeals the sentence imposed following

her guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.     She contends

that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Delgado-Castillo complains that her sentence was improperly

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on her prior

deportation following an aggravated felony conviction.    She

argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-51179
                                -2-

Clause.   Alternatively, Delgado-Castillo contends that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses.

She argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in

her increased sentence was an element of the offense under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in her

indictment.

     In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses.   The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause.    Id. at 239-47.

Delgado-Castillo acknowledges that her arguments are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).

She seeks to preserve her arguments for further review.

     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).    This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.”    Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).    The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

     The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief.   In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required.    The motion is GRANTED.

     AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.