Court Opinion

ID: 29281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:36:35+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:49:59.786267
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 02-50646
                         Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ENRIQUE AGUILERA-MATA,

                                          Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                  USDC No. EP-02-CR-328-ALL-PRM
                       --------------------
                         October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Enrique Aguilera-Mata appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.    He contends that

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

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

Mata complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant

to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior removal following an

aggravated felony conviction.    He argues that the sentencing

provision is unconstitutional.    Alternatively, Aguilera-Mata

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50646
                                  -2-

contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define

separate offenses.   He argues that the aggravated felony

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element

of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been

alleged in his 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.

Aguilera-Mata 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), 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 an appellee’s brief not be required.   The motion is GRANTED.

     AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.