United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 24, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-11126
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARTIN RODRIGO GOMEZ-HERRERA,
also known as Rodrigo Martin Gomez,
also known as Martin Herrera,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CR-29-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Martin Rodrigo Gomez-Herrera appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United
States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Gomez-Herrera 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 is an element
of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have
been alleged in his indictment. Gomez-Herrera maintains that he
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-11126
-2-
pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry
under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds
the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed
for that offense.
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.
Gomez-Herrera acknowledges that his argument is 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 argument 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.
In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has
filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in
the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s
judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The
motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need
not file an appellee’s brief.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY
AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.