Filed: Oct. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41304 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GILBERTO MARTINEZ-GUEVARA, also known as Ramon Vega Benegas, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-314-1 - October 29, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Gilberto Martinez-Guevara appeals the 77-month sentence imposed following his ple
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41304 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GILBERTO MARTINEZ-GUEVARA, also known as Ramon Vega Benegas, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-314-1 - October 29, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Gilberto Martinez-Guevara appeals the 77-month sentence imposed following his plea..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41304
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GILBERTO MARTINEZ-GUEVARA,
also known as Ramon Vega Benegas,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-00-CR-314-1
--------------------
October 29, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gilberto Martinez-Guevara appeals the 77-month sentence
imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found
in the United States after deportation, a 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.
Martinez-Guevara acknowledges that his argument is
foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-41304
-2-
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,
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). Martinez-
Guevara’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.