United States v. Mendez-Madrid

101 F. App'x 554

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. 04-40113 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RENE MENDEZ-MADRID, also known as Nacisco Mendez-Madrid,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-03-CR-895-1 --------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rene Mendez-Madrid 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.

Mendez-Madrid contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

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

Mendez-Madrid alternatively argues that he may not be convicted

and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) because the

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 04-40113 -2-

Government did not allege in the indictment that his deportation

occurred after a qualifying felony or aggravated felony. 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 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.

Mendez-Madrid 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. No. 04-40113 -3-

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.