Filed: May 06, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D April 24, 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Charles R. Fulbruge III FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk No. 02-40799 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SAMUEL JAIME ARCHER, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-44-1 - Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Samuel Jaime Archer appeals the sentenc
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D April 24, 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Charles R. Fulbruge III FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk No. 02-40799 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SAMUEL JAIME ARCHER, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-44-1 - Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Samuel Jaime Archer appeals the sentence..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 24, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
No. 02-40799
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL JAIME ARCHER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-02-CR-44-1
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Samuel Jaime Archer 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. Archer argues
that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40799
-2-
Archer acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), 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 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.