Filed: Aug. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-10431 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS BARRAZA-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:00-CR-120-1-C - August 23, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos Barraza-Soto appeals the 87-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-10431 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS BARRAZA-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:00-CR-120-1-C - August 23, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos Barraza-Soto appeals the 87-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10431
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS BARRAZA-SOTO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:00-CR-120-1-C
--------------------
August 23, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Barraza-Soto appeals the 87-month term of
imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of
being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. Barraza-Soto argues that his sentence should not
have exceeded the two-year maximum term of imprisonment
prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Barraza-Soto acknowledges that
his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in
Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224 (1998), but
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10431
-2-
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). Barraza-
Soto’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has
filed a motion asking us to dismiss this appeal or, in the
alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.
The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The motion for
summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need not file an
appellee’s brief.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY
AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.