USA vs. Urias-Melendez, (5th Cir. 2003)

Text

---

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50677 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARCOS ANTONIO URIAS-MELENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-52-ALL Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Marcos Antonio Urias-Melendez 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.

Urias-Melendez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Urias-Melendez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.

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.

Urias-Melendez 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 appelleeÂ’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appelleeÂ’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

No. 03-50677

---