Court Opinion

ID: 33989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:11:24+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:21.027951
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                February 18, 2004

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 02-41688
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ENCARNACION LUJANO-PEREZ,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. L-00-CR-399-ALL
                       --------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Encarnacion Lujano-Perez appeals the 70-month sentence

imposed following entry of his guilty plea to a charge of being

found in the United States after deportation in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326.   Lujano-Perez argues that the sentencing

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

     Lujano-Perez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

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

he asserts that Almendarez-Torres has been cast into doubt by

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41688
                                  -2-

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).     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.