United States v. Hernandez-Acosta

101 F. App'x 464

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. 03-41477 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA, also known as Hugo Rafael Jimenez-Acosta,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-03-CR-569-1 --------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael Hernandez-Acosta 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.

Hernandez-Acosta 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 03-41477 -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.

Hernandez-Acosta 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.