Filed: Apr. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20838 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALFONSO PENA-PEREZ, also known as Nicolas Arambula-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-207-1 - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Alfonso Pena-Perez appeals the 85-month sentence imposed following his plea of gu
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20838 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALFONSO PENA-PEREZ, also known as Nicolas Arambula-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-207-1 - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Alfonso Pena-Perez appeals the 85-month sentence imposed following his plea of gui..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20838
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALFONSO PENA-PEREZ,
also known as Nicolas Arambula-Hernandez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-207-1
--------------------
April 12, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alfonso Pena-Perez appeals the 85-month sentence imposed
following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the
United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
He contends 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 charged in the indictment.
Pena-Perez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by
the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-20838
-2-
States,
523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue
for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v.
New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466,
120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000).
Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See
Apprendi,
120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit,
231 F.3d 979, 984
(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,
121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Pena-
Perez’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.