Court Opinion

ID: 31072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 10:10:44+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:43.657447
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
                                                              April 23, 2003
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT             Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                 Clerk

                            No. 02-41191
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE ALBERTO AMAYA-ZAPATA,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. B-02-CR-150-1
                      --------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Jorge Alberto Amaya-Zapata 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.       Amaya-

Zapata argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

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

     Amaya-Zapata acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but

asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41191
                                 -2-

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.

       The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief.    In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required.    The motion is GRANTED.

       AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.