Court Opinion

ID: 27885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:16:22+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:41.585627
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-20821
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE PILAR RESENDEZ-OLVERA,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. H-00-CR-334-1
                      --------------------
                          June 19, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Jose Pilar Resendez-Olvera appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to a charge of being found in the

United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

He contends that the aggravated 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.

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20821
                               -2-

     Resendez-Olvera 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 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; see also United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d
979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001).

Resendez-Olvera’s argument is foreclosed.   Accordingly, the

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.