Court Opinion

ID: 26219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:50:01+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:28.785810
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 01-10828
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS ALMANZA-MATA,

                                           Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 1:00-CR-57-ALL
                        --------------------
                          December 12, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Jose Luis Almanza-Mata appeals the 57-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

being found in the United States after deportation in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.   Almanza-Mata 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 was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment.

Almanza-Mata notes that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10828
                                  -2-

recited only facts and elements supporting a charge of simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and argues that his sentence

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

imposed for that offense.    Almanza-Mata acknowledges that his

argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in

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

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

Mata’s argument is foreclosed.    The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

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

filed a motion to dismiss this appeal.     The Government’s motion

to dismiss is DENIED.   However, in light of our decision to

affirm the district court’s judgment, the Government need not

file an appellee’s brief.

     AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED.