United States v. Mora-Hinojos ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-10996
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    DOMINGO MORA-HINOJOS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 6:00-CR-21-1-C
    --------------------
    February 15, 2001
    Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Domingo Mora-Hinojos (“Mora”) appeals his sentence following
    his guilty-plea conviction for illegally reentering the United
    States after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
    § 1326.   Mora argues that a prior aggravated-felony conviction is
    an element of the offense of reentry following deportation after
    an aggravated-felony conviction in violation of § 1326(b) and
    that, because the indictment to which he pleaded guilty failed to
    allege a prior felony conviction, his sentence is illegal.     Mora
    concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v.
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-10996
    -2-
    Almendarez-Torres, 
    523 U.S. 224
    (1998), but he argues that
    Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    120 S. Ct. 2348
    , 2362 (2000), casts doubt
    on Almendarez-Torres and asserts that he is raising the argument
    to preserve it for Supreme Court review.
    Although the Supreme Court noted in Apprendi that, arguably,
    Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided, the Court expressly
    declined to overrule Almendarez-Torres.    
    Apprendi, 120 S. Ct. at 2362-63
    & n.15; United States v. Dabeit, 
    231 F.3d 979
    , 984 (5th
    Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Jan. 26, 2001) (No.
    00-8299).   This court is compelled to follow the precedent set in
    Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself
    determines to overrule it.”   
    Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984
    (internal
    quotation and citation omitted).   The district court’s judgment
    is therefore AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-10996

Filed Date: 2/16/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021