Filed: Apr. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-11149 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONY ISRAEL AMBROSIO, also known as Ronnie Ismael Lambrosio, also known as Ronnie Anbrosio, also known as Rodney Lambrosio, also known as Ronny Ishmael Lambrosio, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CR-162-ALL-D - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circu
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-11149 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONY ISRAEL AMBROSIO, also known as Ronnie Ismael Lambrosio, also known as Ronnie Anbrosio, also known as Rodney Lambrosio, also known as Ronny Ishmael Lambrosio, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CR-162-ALL-D - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circui..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-11149
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONY ISRAEL AMBROSIO, also
known as Ronnie Ismael
Lambrosio, also known as
Ronnie Anbrosio, also known as
Rodney Lambrosio, also known as
Ronny Ishmael Lambrosio,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:00-CR-162-ALL-D
--------------------
April 12, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rony Israel Ambrosio argues that the district court erred in
imposing an enhanced sentence based on his alleged prior
aggravated felony convictions, which were not alleged in the
indictment. He argues that his prior convictions were an element
of the offense and not merely a sentence enhancement factor.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-11149
-2-
Ambrosio concedes that his argument is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he
seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review in
light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466,
120 S. Ct. 2348
(2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See
Apprendi, 120 S. Ct. at 2361-62 & n.15; see also United States v.
Dabeit,
231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,
121
S. Ct. 1214 (2001).
As Ambrosio’s arguments for appeal are foreclosed, he has
failed to show that the district court committed error in
imposing sentence. Ambrosio’s judgment of conviction is
AFFIRMED.