IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20956
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
CIRO FLORES-RAMIREZ
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-376-ALL
--------------------
July 10, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ciro Flores-Ramirez appeals the 70-month sentence imposed
following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the
United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
He argues that the felony conviction that resulted in his
increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of
the offense and not a sentencing enhancement, that the “timing”
of this felony conviction was not alleged in his indictment, and
that the indictment is deficient because it does 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-20956
-2-
Flores acknowledges that his first argument is foreclosed by
the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue
for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v.
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule
Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United
States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). This argument is foreclosed.
Flores’ argument that the indictment must allege that the
prior felony conviction occurred prior to his last deportation is
also without merit. Flores has not explained why an indictment
that need not allege the defendant’s prior conviction at all
under Almendarez-Torres is deficient for omitting the details of
that prior conviction.
Finally, Flores contends that the indictment failed to
charge an offense because it did not allege general intent. This
argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v.
Berrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2001).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.