United States v. Villarreal-Gaytan ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 25, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-40873
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUDOLFO VILLARREAL-GAYTAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-02-CR-119-1
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rudolfo Villarreal-Gaytan 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.
Villarreal 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.
Villarreal thus contends that his sentence should not exceed 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40873
-2-
two-year maximum term of imprisonment 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.
Villareal 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.