Court Opinion

ID: 27501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:08:58+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:15.470484
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-51040
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL LUCERO-SALAS,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                  USDC No. EP-01-CR-1019-ALL-DB
                       --------------------
                          April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Rafael Lucero-Salas 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.     Lucero-Salas

contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define

separate offenses.   He argues that the aggravated felony

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been

alleged in his indictment.   Lucero-Salas maintains that he

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-51040
                                  -2-

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).    He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

     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.

Lucero-Salas 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.