Filed: Jun. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-31127 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS ALBERTO CASTILLO-OCON, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CR-88-ALL-J - June 15, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos Alberto Castillo-Ocon (“Castillo”) appeals the 46- month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-31127 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS ALBERTO CASTILLO-OCON, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CR-88-ALL-J - June 15, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos Alberto Castillo-Ocon (“Castillo”) appeals the 46- month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31127
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ALBERTO CASTILLO-OCON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CR-88-ALL-J
--------------------
June 15, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Alberto Castillo-Ocon (“Castillo”) appeals the 46-
month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge
of being found in the United States after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends 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
charged in the indictment. Castillo additionally argues that the
two-year period of supervised release he received is illegal
under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(3). He acknowledges that his arguments
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-31127
-2-
are foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-
Torres v. United States,
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,
120 S. Ct. 2348 (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).
Castillo’s arguments are foreclosed. The judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.