IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50456
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SERGIO ARTURO LARA-MORA, also known as Ruben Mora,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-00-CR-156-ALL
--------------------
June 19, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sergio Arturo Lara-Mora (Lara) appeals his conviction and
sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He argues that the manner in
which his case was submitted to the jury violated his due process
rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Lara
also contends that his prior conviction for delivery of cocaine
was not an aggravated felony for purposes of the 16-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50456
-2-
Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90;
see also United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.
2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). Therefore, Lara’s
arguments based on Apprendi are foreclosed.
Lara’s argument that his prior conviction was not an
aggravated felony for purposes of the 16-level enhancement under
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) is based on a prior version of that
guideline and cases interpreting that version. See United States
v. Reyna-Espinosa, 117 F.3d 826, 828-30 (5th Cir. 1997)
(interpreting 1995 version of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)). Lara’s prior
conviction for delivery of cocaine for which he was sentenced to
20 months in prison was clearly an aggravated felony under the
law at the time of Lara’s sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2,
comment. (n.1)(2000)(directly incorporating 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)
(43) and defining “felony offense”).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.