Court Opinion

ID: 35049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:23:23+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:12:55.103333
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS          April 21, 2004
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                         Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                 Clerk

                            No. 03-41232
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VALENTIN MALDONADO-ALAMEDA,
                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. B-03-CR-459-1
                      --------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Valentin Maldonado-Alameda (Maldonado) appeals the 70-month

sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of

attempted reentry into the United States after deportation, a

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

     Maldonado acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

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

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-41232
                                -2-

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; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000).   Since Maldonado’s argument is foreclosed, the

judgment of the district court will be AFFIRMED.

     AFFIRMED.