IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40888
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS EMILIO SANTIAGO-SIFUENTES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-00-CR-235-1
--------------------
April 12, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Luis Emilio Santiago-Sifuentes (“Santiago”) appeals his
guilty-plea conviction and 70-month prison sentence for illegal
reentry into the United States after having been previously
convicted and deported for the “aggravated felony” of possession
with intent to distribute cocaine. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(b)(2) and
1101(a)(43)(C). Santiago contends that his indictment was
defective because it did not allege his prior-felony conviction
and because it did not allege any general intent.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40888
-2-
Santiago concedes that, under Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), a prior felony is a sentencing
factor and not an element of the offense that must be alleged in
an indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He
raises the issue only to preserve it for possible Supreme Court
review. Because Almendarez-Torres remains controlling authority,
Santiago is not entitled to relief on the prior-conviction issue.
Santiago contends that his indictment should have been
dismissed because it failed to allege any general intent to enter
the United States. Santiago did not challenge the indictment in
the district court; therefore, it is construed in favor of
validity unless it was so defective that, by any reasonable
construction, it failed to charge the offense of conviction.
United States v. Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357, 373 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 528 U.S. 871 (1999). Santiago’s indictment “fairly
imported that his reentry was a voluntary act” and satisfied the
constitutional requirements of a valid indictment. United States
v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 236, 239 & n.13 (5th Cir. 2000).
Santiago’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.