Filed: Aug. 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-21145 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROSENDO ROSALES-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-472-1 - August 2, 2001 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rosendo Rosales-Gonzalez (Rosales) appeals the 57-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for illeg
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-21145 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROSENDO ROSALES-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-472-1 - August 2, 2001 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rosendo Rosales-Gonzalez (Rosales) appeals the 57-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for illega..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-21145
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROSENDO ROSALES-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-472-1
--------------------
August 2, 2001
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rosendo Rosales-Gonzalez (Rosales) appeals the 57-month
sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for
illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He asserts that his felony
convictions that resulted in his increased sentence under 8
U.S.C. § 1326(b) were an element of the offense that should have
been charged in the indictment.
Rosales acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the
Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-21145
-2-
523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for
Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New
Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000). 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), cert.
denied,
121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Rosales’s argument is
foreclosed, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.