IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50637
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OSCAR MATA-HUERTA, also known as
Oscar Mata,
Defendant-Appellant;
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 00-50704
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BERNARDO GARZON-SERNA,
Defendant- Appellant;
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 00-50771
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AMADOR GARAVITO-REYES, also known as
Amador Garavito,
Defendant-Appellant;
No. 00-50637
c/w Nos. 00-50704 & 00-50771 &
00-50774
- 2 -
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 00-50774
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BERNARDO EDUARDO CASTANEDA-QUINTANA,
also known as Eduardo Quintana,
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:*
Oscar Mata-Huerta, Bernardo Garzon-Serna, Amador Garavito-
Reyes, Bernardo Eduardo Castaneda-Quintana (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.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50637
c/w Nos. 00-50704 & 00-50771 &
00-50774
- 3 -
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.