United States v. Sanchez-Ramos

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 6, 2003
Docket02-40471
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Sanchez-Ramos (United States v. Sanchez-Ramos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Sanchez-Ramos, (5th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 24, 2003

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

No. 02-40471 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS SANCHEZ-RAMOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L:01-CR-1229-ALL --------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Sanchez-Ramos appeals his conviction and sentence

following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. He argues that the

magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct his guilty-plea

proceeding because the district court did not enter an order of

referral for that purpose. Sanchez has waived review of this

procedural error by his failure to object in the district court.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-40471 -2-

See United States v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 253, 255 (5th Cir.

2002), cert. denied, 2003 WL 729161 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2003).

Sanchez additionally argues that the “felony” and

“aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1)&(2) are

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000); however, he concedes that this issue is foreclosed, and

he raises it only to preserve its further review by the Supreme

Court. This argument is indeed foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and we must therefore

follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres “unless and until

the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” United

States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal

quotation and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

United States v. Dabeit
231 F.3d 979 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Bolivar-Munoz
313 F.3d 253 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Sanchez-Ramos, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sanchez-ramos-ca5-2003.