IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-51057
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSÉ MANUEL SOTELO-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-00-CR-135-ALL
--------------------
August 23, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
José Manuel Sotelo-Gonzalez (“Sotelo”) challenges the
sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for
illegal reentry, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues
that his prior conviction for transporting aliens does not
constitute an aggravated-felony conviction for purposes of the
sixteen-level increase to his base offense level under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2. As Sotelo concedes, his argument is foreclosed by
United States v. Monjaras-Castaneda, 190 F.3d 326, 331 (5th Cir.
1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1194 (2000), in which this court
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-51057
-2-
determined that transporting aliens constitutes an aggravated
felony. Sotelo states that he raises the argument only to
preserve the issue for Supreme Court review.
In his second issue, Sotelo contends that his aggravated-
felony conviction for transporting aliens was an element of the
offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been
charged in the indictment. He concedes that this argument is
foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres
v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he again seeks to
preserve the issue for Supreme Court review, relying on Apprendi
v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,
540 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984
(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001).
Consequently, this argument likewise fails, and the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.