United States v. Romo-Romero

72 F. App'x 225

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50091 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS ENRIQUE ROMO-ROMERO, also known as Luis Enrique Lara-Duran, also known as Luis Enrique Romero-Romo, also known as Luis Enrique Lara, also known as Luis Enrique Romo,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-02-CR-220-ALL-SS --------------------

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Enrique Romo-Romero 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.

Romo-Romero complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction.

He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 03-50091 -2-

Romo-Romero thus contends that his sentence should not exceed

the maximum term of 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.

Romo-Romero acknowledges that his argument is 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 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.