United States v. Talavera-Rosas

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50625 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE LUIS ESTRADA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant; ____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50712 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GERMAN GALAVIS-ACOSTA, Defendant- Appellant; ____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50729 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JESUS ELIAS MENDOZA-CASTANEDA, also known as Lucio Hernandez- Garcia Defendant-Appellant; No. 00-50625 c/w Nos. 00-50712 & 00-50729 & 00-50788 - 2 - ____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50766 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAFAEL TALAVERA-ROSAS, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50788 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GUSTAVO CALDERA-ROMERO, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 00-50625 c/w Nos. 00-50712 & 00-50729 & 00-50788 - 3 - Jose Luis Estrada-Garcia, German Galavis-Acosta, Jesus Elias Mendoza-Castaneda, Rafael Talavera-Rosas, and Gustavo Caldera- Romero (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, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (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.