Court Opinion

ID: 25182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:32:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:56.922658
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-51335
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR URBINA-PEREZ,

                                           Defendant-Appellant.

                          --------------------
             Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Western District of Texas
                       USDC No. SA-00-CR-339-ALL
                          --------------------
                             August 23, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Oscar Urbina-Perez appeals the 51-month term of imprisonment

imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in

the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Urbina-Perez argues that his sentence should not have exceeded

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a).     Urbina-Perez acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-51335
                               -2-

issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

     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, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001).   Urbina-

Perez’s argument is foreclosed.   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 the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required.   The motion is GRANTED.

     AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.