Filed: Feb. 21, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-40539 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAIME LICEA-FEREGRINO, also known as Benito Licea-Feregrino, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-01-CR-793-1 - February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jamie Licea-Feregrino appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty p
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-40539 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAIME LICEA-FEREGRINO, also known as Benito Licea-Feregrino, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-01-CR-793-1 - February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jamie Licea-Feregrino appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty pl..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40539
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAIME LICEA-FEREGRINO, also known as Benito Licea-Feregrino,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-01-CR-793-1
--------------------
February 20, 2003
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jamie Licea-Feregrino appeals the sentence imposed following
his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States
after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Licea argues
that the “felony” enhancement provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is
unconstitutional.
Licea acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40539
-2-
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.