United States v. Arreola-Garcia ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10972
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUEL ARREOLA-GARCIA,
also known as Manuel Arreola Garcia,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:01-CR-97-ALL-G
--------------------
April 11, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Manuel Arreola-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following
his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States
after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Arreola-
Garcia contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)
define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony
conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element
of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been
alleged in his indictment. Arreola-Garcia maintains that he
pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10972
-2-
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.
Arreola-Garcia 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), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). 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.
In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has
filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in
the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s
judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The
motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need
not file an appellee’s brief.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY
AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.