Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Loredo-Olvera, 03-50212 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 03-50212 Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 19, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 20, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50212 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO LOREDO-OLVERA, also known as Frank Rubio, also known as Jose Esparza, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-1679-1-PRM - Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Cir
More
                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                               F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   August 20, 2003

                                                            Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                    Clerk
                            No. 03-50212
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO LOREDO-OLVERA, also
known as Frank Rubio, also known
as Jose Esparza,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                   USDC No. EP-02-CR-1679-1-PRM
                       --------------------

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

    Francisco Loredo-Olvera 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.

Loredo-Olvera 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

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-50212
                                 -2-

been alleged in his indictment.    Loredo-Olvera 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

(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.
Loredo-Olvera acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, 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 arguments 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.
                          No. 03-50212
                               -3-

     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.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer