Court Opinion

ID: 33032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:00:21+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:58.694154
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. 03-40206
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCO AMBROSIO MEZA-LOPEZ,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. L-02-CR-1233-ALL
                       --------------------

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

PER CURIAM:*

     Marco Ambrosio Meza-Lopez (Meza) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.   Meza argues that the “felony”

and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and

(2) are unconstitutional.    Meza 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, 489-90 (2000).          He

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40206
                                 -2-

seeks to preserve his argument for possible further review and

“to avoid later accusations of procedural default should the law

change on this question.”

     Meza’s Apprendi argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres,

523 U.S. at 235.   We must follow the precedent set in

Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself

determines to overrule it.”   United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d

979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation and citation

omitted).

     AFFIRMED.