United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41285
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN MEZA-GONZALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-01-CR-680-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Meza-Gonzales appeals his guilty plea conviction for
illegal re-entry after deportation. He argues that: (1) the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence
of his prior deportation and dismiss the indictment because the
immigration judge who conducted the deportation hearing violated
his due process rights by not informing him of his eligibility
for discretionary relief from deportation; and (2) 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in this
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41285
-2-
case in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Meza concedes that both of his
arguments are foreclosed by precedent from this circuit and the
Supreme Court, respectively. Nevertheless, he raises the issues
to preserve them for possible Supreme Court review.
Meza’s argument regarding the validity of his prior
deportation hearing is foreclosed by this court’s decision in
United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2002), cert.
denied, 537 U.S. 1135 (2003). Accordingly, he is not entitled to
relief.
Meza’s argument regarding the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326 is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The
Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi did not overrule
Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also
United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This
court must therefore follow the precedent set in
Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself
determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal
quotation and citation omitted). Accordingly, the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.