Court Opinion

ID: 33070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:00:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:01.912479
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                               F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   October 22, 2003

                                                            Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                    Clerk
                              No. 03-40498
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELISEO DUARTE-MARTINEZ,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. B-02-CR-750-1
                      --------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Eliseo Duarte-Martinez (Duarte) appeals his conviction and

the 41-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to

knowingly and unlawfully being present in the United States

without authorization after conviction for an aggravated felony,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b).     Duarte argues that

the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional.

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40498
                                 -2-

       Duarte acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but

he asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).    He seeks to preserve

his argument 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).    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.

       Given the above disposition, we do not decide whether

Duarte’s appeal is barred by the waiver provision of his plea

agreement.

       AFFIRMED.