IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50641
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, also known as
Antonio Hernandez, also known as Juan
Antonio Garcia, also known as Pedro
Hernandez-Garcia,
Defendant-Appellant;
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 00-50682
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL SANCHEZ-CONTRERAS, also known
as Daniel Sanchez,
Defendant- Appellant;
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 00-50692
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
No. 00-50641
c/w Nos. 00-50682 & 00-50692 &
00-50825 & 00-50826
- 2 -
CARLOS REYNA-SANTANA, also known as
Mario Salinas-Cardenas, also known
as Felix Rivas,
Defendant-Appellant;
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 00-50825
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN GABRIEL SEGOVIA-GALAN, also known
as Roger Gallegos,
Defendant-Appellant;
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 00-50826
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE HOMERO RUELES-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
- - - - - - - - - -
February 15, 2001
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
No. 00-50641
c/w Nos. 00-50682 & 00-50692 &
00-50825 & 00-50826
- 3 -
Antonio Garcia-Hernandez, Daniel Sanchez-Contreras, Carlos
Reyna-Santana, Juan Gabriel Segovia-Galan, and Jose Homero
Rueles-Hernandez (collectively the Defendants) appeal their
sentences following their guilty plea convictions for illegal re-
entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The
Defendants argue that their sentences should not have exceeded
the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The
Defendants acknowledge that their argument is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but they
seek to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
The Defendants’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres,
523 U.S. at 235.
The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of
filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks
that the judgments of the district court be affirmed and that an
appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.