United States v. Cordero-Lucio

95 F. App'x 79

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2004
• Docket: 03-11090
• Status: Unpublished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. 03-11090 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE RAUL CORDERO-LUCIO, also known as Joe Raul Cordero,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-54-ALL-C --------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Raul Cordero-Lucio appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of sexual abuse of a minor

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a). Cordero-Lucio argues that

under the reasoning of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), a fact must be alleged in the indictment before it may be

used to increase the maximum guideline sentence. Cordero-Lucio

acknowledges that his contention is foreclosed by this court’s

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 03-11090 -2-

decision in United States v. Randle, 304 F.3d 373 (5th Cir.

2002).

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.

Cordero-Lucio acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including

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.

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.