IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20209
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORGE RAMIREZ-VILLA, also known as Jorge Luis Ramirez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-357-ALL
--------------------
December 12, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jorge Ramirez-Villa appeals his guilty-plea conviction for
illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a)(1) and (b)(2). He argues that his prior felony
conviction is an element of the offense which should have been
alleged in the indictment. Ramirez-Villa acknowledges that this
argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but
states that he is raising this issue to preserve it for possible
Supreme Court review in view of the decision in Apprendi v. New
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20209
-2-
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule
Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also
United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001).
Ramirez-Villa also argues that the indictment was defective
in that it did not allege that he had any general intent to
reenter the United States. Ramirez-Villa’s argument is
foreclosed by United States v. Berrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d 294, 298
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 288 (2001), in which this
court concluded that an indictment charging the defendant with
being “previously deported and removed” from the United States
and subsequently “found present in the United States
. . . without having obtained the consent of the Attorney General
. . . to apply for readmission into the United States”
sufficiently alleged the general intent element of § 1326.
Id. at 298-300 and n.4. Because the language of Ramirez-Villa’s
indictment is identical to that in Berrios-Centeno, the
indictment sufficiently alleged the general intent element of the
offense. See id. at 298-300.
AFFIRMED.
United States v. Ramirez-Villa
Combined Opinion