United States v. Rosales

115 F. App'x 237
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Rosales. Read the opinion of the Court — 115 F. App'x 709
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 17, 2004·No. 04-40162·Unpublished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 December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-40162 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SERGIO ARTURO ROSALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-1379-1 --------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sergio Arturo Rosales pleaded guilty to reentering the

United States illegally after having been deported and after

having been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” a violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The district court sentenced him to a

60-month prison term and to three years of supervised release.

For the first time on appeal, Rosales argues that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), because it does not require the fact of a

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 04-40162 -2-

prior felony or aggravated-felony conviction to be charged in the

indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As Rosales

concedes, this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and Almendarez-Torres was not

overruled by Apprendi. See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d

979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Rosales also argues that the Supreme Court’s holding in

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), should be applied

to sentences determined under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by this

court’s opinion in United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465

(5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004)

(No. 04-5263), but he raises it to preserve it for possible

further review.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Rosales, 115 F. App'x 237 (5th Cir. 2004).

115 F. App'x 237 (United States v. Rosales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Dabeit
231 F.3d 979 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 2004)