United States v. Guzman-Ramirez

101 F. App'x 486

Opinion

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. 03-41712 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTINIANO GUZMAN-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-03-CR-730-1 --------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martiniano Guzman-Ramirez 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.

Guzman-Ramirez 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 U.S.C. § 1362(a),

his judgment must be reformed to reflect a conviction only under

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 03-41712 -2-

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.

Alternatively, Guzman-Ramirez argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Guzman-Ramirez maintains that he

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the maximum term of imprisonment release which may be imposed for

that offense. Guzman-Ramirez thus contends that his sentence

should not exceed the maximum terms of imprisonment and

supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

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.

Guzman-Ramirez 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 No. 03-41712 -3-

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.