Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (October 21, 2003)
Docket number: 02-41577
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/usa-vs-cantu-18406207
Id. vLex: VLEX-18406207
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

U.S. Code - Title 8: Aliens and Nationality - 8 USC 1326 - Sec. 1326. Reentry of removed aliens
U.S. Supreme Court - Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998)
U.S. Supreme Court - Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .
R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-41577 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN MARTIN MEDRANO CANTU, also known as Juan Manuel Lopez, also known as Juan Moreno Garcia, also known as Juan Martin Campos-Cantu, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-43-ALL Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.PER CURIAM: * Juan Martin Medrano Cantu appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Cantu argues that the § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional.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.Cantu acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), 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. No. 02-41577Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access