Court Opinion

ID: 26944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:01:52+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:19.780383
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-50984
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADRIAN GARCIA-LARA,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                   USDC No. DR-01-CR-281-ALL-FB
                       --------------------
                         February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Adrian Garcia-Lara appeals the 77-month term of imprisonment

imposed following his guilty plea conviction of attempting to

illegally reenter the United States after deportation in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.   He contends that the sentence is

invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

     Garcia-Lara complains that his sentence was improperly

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior

deportation following an aggravated felony conviction.    He argues

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50984
                               -2-

that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause.

Alternatively, Garcia-Lara 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 was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment.

Garcia-Lara acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by the

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

523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issues 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, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001).    Garcia-

Lara’s arguments are foreclosed.    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.