Court Opinion

ID: 24880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:28:09+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:55.865172
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                           No. 00-21145
                         Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROSENDO ROSALES-GONZALEZ,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. H-00-CR-472-1
                      --------------------
                         August 2, 2001

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Rosendo Rosales-Gonzalez (Rosales) appeals the 57-month

sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for

illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.   He asserts that his felony

convictions that resulted in his increased sentence under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b) were an element of the offense that should have

been charged in the indictment.

     Rosales acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the

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

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-21145
                                -2-

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).   Rosales’s argument is

foreclosed, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.