Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Salazar-Dozal, 00-10879 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 00-10879 Visitors: 14
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
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

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