Court Opinion

ID: 31410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 10:16:20+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:47.730212
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                               F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS            April 24, 2003

                                                            Charles R. Fulbruge III
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                       Clerk

                              No. 02-40984
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FERNANDO ANDRADE-REYES,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. M-02-CR-68-1
                       --------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

   Fernando Andrade-Reyes appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

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

Andrade contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

are unconstitutional.   He argues that the prior conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40984
                                 -2-

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

his indictment.    Andrade maintains that he pleaded guilty to an

indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a).    He argues that his 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.

Andrade acknowledges that his 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).

He seeks to preserve his 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.