United States v. Gallegos-Flores

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. 03-40904
c/w No. 03-40960
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JULIO GALLEGOS-FLORES, also known
as Juvencio Gutierrez-Cabrera,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-03-CR-159-1
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Julio Gallegos-Flores 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.
Gallegos-Flores contends that the “felony” and “aggravated
felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are
unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must
be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40904
c/w No. 03-40960
-2-
U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a
conviction only under that provision, and his sentence must be
vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than
two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release.
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.
Gallegos-Flores acknowledges that his arguments are 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 arguments 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.