Court Opinion

ID: 29808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:45:00+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:53.574670
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 02-40446
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADOLFO NAVA-CORONA, also known as Juan
Peredes-Gonzalez, also known as Juan Paredes-Gonzalez,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. M-01-CR-789-1
                       --------------------
                         December 12, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Adolfo Nava-Corona (“Nava”) appeals the 37-month sentence

imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found

in the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326.   He contends that the aggravated-felony conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)

was an element of the offense that should have been charged in

the indictment.

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40446
                                -2-

     Nava acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the

Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the 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).   Nava's

argument is foreclosed.   The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.