72 F. App'x 225

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin VENEGAS-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Martin Venegas-Ortega, also known as martin Rodriguez-Venegas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50390.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Martin Venegas-Rodriguez 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. Venegas 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. Venegas maintains that he 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. Alternatively, he argues that construing 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) as a sentence-enhancement provision renders the statute unconstitutional.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (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, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Venegas acknowledges that his arguments *226are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review.

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; 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.

United States v. Venegas-Rodriguez
72 F. App'x 225

Case Details

Name
United States v. Venegas-Rodriguez
Decision Date
Aug 20, 2003
Citations

72 F. App'x 225

Jurisdiction
United States

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!