Court Opinion

ID: 25219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:33:08+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:08.968034
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 01-10431
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS BARRAZA-SOTO,

                                           Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Northern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 5:00-CR-120-1-C
                      --------------------
                         August 23, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Carlos Barraza-Soto appeals the 87-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326.    Barraza-Soto argues that his sentence should not

have exceeded the two-year maximum term of imprisonment

prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).    Barraza-Soto acknowledges that

his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10431
                               -2-

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).   Barraza-

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

court is AFFIRMED.

     In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has

filed a motion asking us to dismiss this appeal or, in the

alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.   The motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED.   The Government need not file an

appellee’s brief.

     AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY
     AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.