United States v. Romero-Sid ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50320
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOEL ROMERO-SID, also known as Noe Torres,
also known as Joel Romero Sid, also known as
Joel Arturo Sid, also known as Joel Sid-Romero,
also known as Joel Ramirez Duarte, also known as
Joe Fernandez, also known as Joel Fernando Gutierrez,
also known as Noe Navarrete Torres, also known as Noe
Nebarrete Torres, also known as Noe Navarette Torres,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-02-CR-271-ALL-SS
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joel Romero-Sid 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. Romero-Sid
complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-50320
-2-
the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Romero-Sid thus
contends that his sentence 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.
Romero-Sid 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.