IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-21151
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AURELIO RANGEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-333-1
- - - - - - - - - -
August 2, 2001
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Aurelio Rangel Barron appeals his guilty-plea conviction for
illegal reentry into the United States following deportation in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rangel argues that a prior felony
conviction is an element of the offense that must be alleged in
the indictment rather than a sentencing factor. Rangel
acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve
the issue for possible Supreme Court review in the light of
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-21151
-2-
overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Dabeit, 231
F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214
(2001). Rangel’s first argument is therefore foreclosed.
Rangel also argues that his indictment does not charge an
offense because it fails to allege any general intent on his
part. Rangel’s indictment, however, “fairly conveyed that [his]
presence was a voluntary act from the allegations that he was
deported, removed, and subsequently present without consent of
the Attorney General.” See United States v. Berrios-Centeno, 250
F.3d 294, 299-300 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, his indictment
sufficiently alleged the general intent required of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326 offenses. See id. at 297-300.
AFFIRMED.