IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40971
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE EFRAIN REYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-00-CR-241-1
--------------------
May 31, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Efrain Reyes appeals his conviction and 48-month
sentence imposed following acceptance of his guilty plea to a
charge of illegal re-entry to the United States after deportation
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Reyes first contends that his
guilty plea was involuntary and was rendered in violation of due
process because the district court did not comply with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Reyes has not shown that
the district court’s lack of compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Cuevas-
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40971
-2-
Andrade, 232 F.3d 440, 443-45 (5th Cir. 2000). The record
demonstrates that Reyes understood the charge and its
consequences; therefore, his plea was not rendered in violation
of due process. See United States v. Reyna, 130 F.3d 104, 112
(5th Cir 1997).
Reyes also contends that the felony conviction that resulted
in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an
element of the offense that should have been alleged in the
indictment. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998),
but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in
light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63 (2000).
Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 120
S. Ct. at 2361-62 & n.15; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979,
984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001).
Reyes’ argument is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S.
at 235.
AFFIRMED.