Filed: Apr. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10879 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HERMAN SALAZAR-DOZAL, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:00-CR-26-1-C - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Herman Salazar-Dozal appeals his 96-month sentence following his plea of guilty to a charge of illegal re-entry to the U
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10879 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HERMAN SALAZAR-DOZAL, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:00-CR-26-1-C - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Herman Salazar-Dozal appeals his 96-month sentence following his plea of guilty to a charge of illegal re-entry to the Un..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10879
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HERMAN SALAZAR-DOZAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:00-CR-26-1-C
--------------------
April 12, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Herman Salazar-Dozal appeals his 96-month sentence following
his plea of guilty to a charge of illegal re-entry to the United
States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Salazar asserts that the felony conviction that resulted in his
increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of
the offense that should have been alleged in the indictment. He
acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
v. United States,
523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but he seeks to
preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-10879
-2-
v. New Jersey,
120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63 (2000). Apprendi did not
overrule Almendarez-Torres. See
Apprendi, 120 S. Ct. at 2361-62
& n.15; United States v. Dabeit,
231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.
2000), cert. denied,
121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Salazar’s argument
is foreclosed. See
Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235.
AFFIRMED.