Filed: Apr. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10946 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAIME VELAZQUEZ-DELALUZ, also known as Jaime Velazques-DeLaLuz, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CR-160-1-P - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jaime Velazquez-Delaluz (Velazquez) appeals his 80-month sentence imposed fol
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10946 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAIME VELAZQUEZ-DELALUZ, also known as Jaime Velazques-DeLaLuz, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CR-160-1-P - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jaime Velazquez-Delaluz (Velazquez) appeals his 80-month sentence imposed foll..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10946
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAIME VELAZQUEZ-DELALUZ, also known as
Jaime Velazques-DeLaLuz,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:00-CR-160-1-P
--------------------
April 12, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jaime Velazquez-Delaluz (Velazquez) appeals his 80-month
sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to the charge of
being found in the United States after deportation, a violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Velazquez contends that the prior 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.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-10946
-2-
Velazquez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by
the Supreme Court’s decision in 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 the decision in
Apprendi v. New Jersey,
120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63 (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).
Velazquez’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.