Court Opinion

ID: 27500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:08:57+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:09.415152
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-51038
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OMAR LOPEZ-VELASQUEZ,
also known as Manuel Ramirez,
also known as Omar Lopez,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                     USDC No. A-01-CR-93-ALL
                       --------------------
                          April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Omar Lopez-Velasquez appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.     Lopez-

Velasquez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation

following an aggravated felony conviction.    Lopez-Velasquez

argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process

Clause because it permitted the sentencing judge to find, under a

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-51038
                                -2-

preponderance of the evidence standard, a fact which increased

the statutory maximum sentence to which he otherwise would have

been exposed.   Lopez-Velasquez thus contends that his sentence is

invalid and argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum

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

     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.

Lopez-Velasquez acknowledges that his argument is 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 argument 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 the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

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

     AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
No. 01-51038
      -3-