United States v. Rivas-Martinez ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                December 30, 2004
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 04-40371
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JOSE RIVAS-MARTINEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. B-03-CR-853-ALL
    --------------------
    Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Jose Rivas-Martinez appeals his sentence imposed following
    his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United
    States following deportation.   Martinez was sentenced to a term
    of imprisonment of 24 months, to be followed by a three-year term
    of supervised release.   Rivas argues that the district court
    plainly erred in assigning him criminal history points for his
    Texas misdemeanor convictions for evading arrest and failing to
    identify himself to a peace officer because they are similar to
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-40371
    -2-
    offenses listed in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1), which are not counted
    in calculating criminal history points.
    Because Rivas filed no objections to the PSR, review is for
    plain error.    See United States v. Calverley, 
    37 F.3d 160
    , 162-64
    (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).    Rivas’s prior convictions for evading
    arrest and failure to identify himself to a peace officer each
    resulted in a 20-days sentence of imprisonment and were not
    similar to his instant offense of conviction.       See U.S.S.G.
    § 4A1.2(c).    The offenses were similar to the offenses of
    resisting arrest and providing false information to a peace
    officer, which are excluded from consideration in assigning
    criminal history points if the sentence imposed is for less than
    one year of imprisonment.    Id.; United States v. Moore, 
    997 F.2d 30
    , 34-35 & n.6 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Reyes-Maya,
    
    305 F.3d 362
    , 367-68 (5th Cir. 2002).       Therefore, the district
    court erroneously assigned Rivas criminal history points for his
    prior misdemeanor convictions for evading arrest and failure to
    identify himself to a peace officer.
    Because the errors resulted in Rivas receiving a higher
    sentencing guideline range, his substantial rights were affected
    by the error.    See United States v. Aderholt, 
    87 F.3d 740
    , 744
    (5th Cir. 1996).    Thus, the errors were plain errors warranting a
    resentencing without consideration of the two additional criminal
    history points based on Rivas’s prior misdemeanor convictions for
    No. 04-40371
    -3-
    evading arrest and failing to identify himself to a peace
    officer.
    Rivas also argues that the sentencing enhancements under
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v.
    New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000).    He further argues that if
    Blakely v. Washington, 
    124 S. Ct. 2531
     (2004), is applied to the
    federal sentencing guidelines, his sentence should be
    recalculated.
    Rivas concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by
    Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
     (1998), and by
    this court’s decision in United States v. Pineiro, 
    377 F.3d 464
    ,
    473 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed, (July 14, 2004)
    (No. 03-30437), but he states that he raises the issues to
    preserve them 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).    Furthermore, this court has held that Blakely
    does not apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.     Pineiro,
    
    377 F.3d at 473
    .    This argument is without merit.
    Rivas’s sentence imposed is VACATED, and the case is
    REMANDED to the district court for resentencing in accordance
    with this opinion.
    No. 04-40371
    -4-
    SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.