Court Opinion

ID: 31712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 10:20:55+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:02.468570
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                  June 25, 2003

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 02-41375
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIA GUADALUPE ORTIZ-LOPEZ,
                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. M-02-CR-355-1
                      --------------------

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

    Marie Guadalupe Ortiz-Lopez appeals the sentence imposed

following her guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

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

§ 1326(b) are unconstitutional.   She argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in her increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in her indictment.   Ortiz-Lopez maintains that she

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41375
                                 -2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).    She argues that her sentence exceeds

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

for that offense.

       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.

Ortiz-Lopez 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).    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 an appellee’s brief not be required.    The motion is GRANTED.

       AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.