United States v. Orduna-Ochoa

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 23, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50931
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAMON ORDUNA-OCHOA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-03-CR-216-1-AML
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ramon Orduna-Ochoa 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. Orduna-
Ochoa contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)
define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction
that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a
separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been
alleged in his indictment. Orduna-Ochoa maintains that he
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-50931
-2-
pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry
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.
Orduna-Ochoa 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.