United States v. Alvarez-Benitez ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50688
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FERNANDO ALVAREZ-BENITEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-01-CR-2209-ALL
--------------------
December 12, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Fernando Alvarez-Benitez appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United
States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Alvarez-
Benitez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior removal
following an aggravated felony conviction. Alvarez-Benitez
argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional because
it permitted the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance
of the evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50688
-2-
maximum sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed.
Alvarez-Benitez thus contends that his sentence is invalid and
argues that it should not exceed the 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.
Alvarez-Benitez 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 appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks
that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.