Filed: Dec. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-41694 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODOLFO ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-02-CR-995-ALL - Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rodolfo Antonio Rodrig
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-41694 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODOLFO ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-02-CR-995-ALL - Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rodolfo Antonio Rodrigu..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 10, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41694
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODOLFO ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-02-CR-995-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodolfo Antonio Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry
following deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rodriguez
raises two issues that he concedes are foreclosed, but he seeks
to preserve them for further review.
Rodriguez argues that his prior conviction for possession of
a controlled substance is not an aggravated felony under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). This argument is foreclosed by our decision in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41694
-2-
United States v. Caicedo-Cuero,
312 F.3d 697, 705-11 (5th Cir.
2002), cert. denied,
123 S. Ct. 1948 (2003).
Rodriguez argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi
v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000). Rodriguez’s argument is
foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224,
235, 239-47 (1998). 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).
AFFIRMED.