Court Opinion

ID: 35782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:32:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:05.785832
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                             FILED
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         June 23, 2004
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                       Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                               Clerk

                            No. 03-41549
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO OCHOA-CORNEJO,
                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. B-03-CR-628-1
                      --------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Pedro Ochoa-Cornejo (Ochoa) appeals his guilty plea

conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following

an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

For the first time on appeal, Ochoa argues that the sentencing

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

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).       Ochoa

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve

the issue for Supreme Court review.     Apprendi did not overrule

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-41549
                                -2-

Almendarez-Torres.   See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United

States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.