IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50767
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICARDO FLORES BURCIAGA,
also known as Ricardo Flores-Burciaga,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-02-CR-53-1-FB
--------------------
February 20, 2003
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ricardo Flores Burciaga 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). Burciaga complains that his
sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b).
He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50767
-2-
Alternatively, Burciaga contends that 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.
Burciaga 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.