Court Opinion

ID: 31355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 10:15:36+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:02.799792
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
                                                              April 24, 2003
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                         Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                 Clerk
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 02-20852
                         Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTURO MONJARAZ-REYES,

                                           Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. H-02-CR-25-1
                       --------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Arturo Monjaraz-Reyes (“Monjaraz”) appeals from his

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United

States after commission of an aggravated felony.    His sole

argument on appeal is that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which was used

to enhance his sentence based on his prior aggravated felony

conviction, is unconstitutional.

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20852
                                 -2-

       Monjaraz 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 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.