IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50753
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILFREDO REVULTA-ESPINOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-02-CR-525-1-DB
--------------------
February 20, 2003
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wilfredo Revulta-Espinoza appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction of attempting to illegally
reenter the United States after deportation/removal in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid
because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment
prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Revulta-Espinoza complains
that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b). He argues that the sentencing provision is
unconstitutional. Alternatively, Revulta-Espinoza contends that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50753
-2-
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate
offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in
his increased sentence was an element of a separate offense under
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his
indictment.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235
(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of
separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing
provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47.
Revulta-Espinoza acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed
by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast
into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).
He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review.
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). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres
“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule
it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of
filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks
that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.