IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40930
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN CARLOS CHAVEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-00-CR-294-1
--------------------
April 26, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Carlos Chavez appeals his guilty-plea conviction for
illegal reentry into the United States after deportation in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that in view of Apprendi
v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63 (2000), his prior felony
conviction was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b)(2), and not merely a sentence enhancement. He
acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998), but states that he is
preserving it for possible Supreme Court review because the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40930
-2-
Supreme Court indicated in Apprendi that Almendarez-Torres may
have been wrongly decided. Because the Supreme Court has not
overruled Almendarez-Torres, this court is compelled to follow
it. See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.
2000), cert. denied, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Feb. 26, 2001), 2001
WL 77067 (No. 00-8299).
Chavez also argues that the indictment was defective under
the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because it did not allege general
intent. Because Chavez did not challenge his indictment in the
district court, we review whether it was constitutionally
sufficient under a “maximum liberality” standard. See United
States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 2000).
Chavez’s indictment “fairly imported that his reentry was a
voluntary act” and satisfied the constitutional requirements of a
valid indictment. See id. at 236, 239 & n.13.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.