Filed: Oct. 21, 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 October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-40498 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ELISEO DUARTE-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-750-1 - Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eliseo Duarte-Martinez
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-40498 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ELISEO DUARTE-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-750-1 - Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eliseo Duarte-Martinez ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40498
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ELISEO DUARTE-MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-02-CR-750-1
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eliseo Duarte-Martinez (Duarte) appeals his conviction and
the 41-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to
knowingly and unlawfully being present in the United States
without authorization after conviction for an aggravated felony,
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Duarte argues that
the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40498
-2-
Duarte acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but
he asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi
v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve
his argument for further review.
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). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres
“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule
it.”
Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Given the above disposition, we do not decide whether
Duarte’s appeal is barred by the waiver provision of his plea
agreement.
AFFIRMED.