Court Opinion

ID: 29724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:43:54+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:57.729657
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                           No. 02-20270
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAUL REYNA-RODRIGUEZ,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. H-01-CR-825-1
                      --------------------
                        December 12, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Raul Reyna-Rodriguez 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.     Reyna-

Rodriguez argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) are unconstitutional.

     Reyna acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, but

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20270
                               -2-

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.