Court Opinion

ID: 36722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:44:00+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:27.640629
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 21, 2004

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 04-40204
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO GARCIA-LOPEZ,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. B-03-CR-856-ALL
                      --------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Mario Garcia-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) by being found

in the United States, without permission, following both his

conviction for an aggravated felony and subsequent deportation.

Garcia-Lopez contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional.

He asks us to vacate his conviction and sentence, reform the

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-40204
                                 -2-

judgment to reflect a conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),

and remand his case for resentencing under that provision.

       In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses.    The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause.     Id. at 239-47.

Garcia-Lopez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).

He seeks to preserve his argument for further 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).    This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.”    Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).    The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.