United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 25, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41375
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIA GUADALUPE ORTIZ-LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-02-CR-355-1
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marie Guadalupe Ortiz-Lopez appeals the sentence imposed
following her guilty plea conviction of being found in the United
States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Ortiz-Lopez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b) are unconstitutional. She argues that the prior
conviction that resulted in her increased sentence is an element
of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have
been alleged in her indictment. Ortiz-Lopez maintains that she
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41375
-2-
pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry
under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). She argues that her 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.
Ortiz-Lopez acknowledges that her 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).
She seeks to preserve her 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.