Court Opinion

ID: 33073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:00:47+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:49:45.155116
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 October 22, 2003

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 03-40515
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROLANDO OYEVIDES-JIMENEZ,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. B-02-CR-800-1
                      --------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Rolando Oyevides-Jimenez appeals his guilty-plea conviction

for illegal reentry into the United States following an

aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

For the first time on appeal, Oyevides-Jimenez argues that the

sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (2) are

unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40515
                                -2-

     Oyevides-Jimenez acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve

the issue for Supreme Court 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).   Oyevides-

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

court is AFFIRMED.