United States v. Berrellesa-Ortega

95 F. App'x 575

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2004
• Docket: 03-41092
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-41092 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCOS BERRELLESA-ORTEGA, also known as Marcos Urrea-Gutierrez,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-03-CR-286-ALL --------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcos Berrellesa-Ortega appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Berrellesa-Ortega contends that the “felony” and “aggravated

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

unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must

be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 03-41092 -2-

U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a

conviction only under that provision, and his sentence must be

vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than

two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47.

Berrellesa-Ortega acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, 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 arguments 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.