Court Opinion

ID: 26305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:50:53+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:49.685732
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 01-40162
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISIDORO LOPEZ-GOMEZ,

                                           Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Eastern District of Texas
                       USDC No. 3:00-CR-7-ALL
                        --------------------
                          December 12, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Isidoro Lopez-Gomez appeals his sentence of 71 months’

imprisonment 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 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.

     Lopez-Gomez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

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

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40162
                               -2-

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, 490 (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).   Lopez-

Gomez’s argument is foreclosed.   The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.