Court Opinion

ID: 29121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:34:44+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:47.077806
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 02-10560
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIAN PEREZ-MENDOZA,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Northern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 6:01-CR-65-ALL-C
                       --------------------
                         October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Julian Perez-Mendoza appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.     Perez-Mendoza

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 is an element

of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been

alleged in his indictment.   Perez-Mendoza maintains that he

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-10560
                                 -2-

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).   He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

     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.

Perez-Mendoza 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), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001).    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.

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

filed a motion asking this court 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 a summary affirmance is GRANTED.   The Government need

not file an appellee’s brief.

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