United States v. Pacheco-Soria

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50480
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALBERTO MARTINEZ-JUAREZ,
Defendant-Appellant;
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 00-50484
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GERMAN PACHECO-SORIA,
Defendant- Appellant;
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 00-50626
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AVELINO DE SANTIAGO-FLORIANO,
also known as Avelino Santiago,
Defendant-Appellant;

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 00-50480
c/w Nos. 00-50484 &
00-50626 & 00-50887
- 2 -
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 00-50887
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CESAR ROMERO-RAMOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
- - - - - - - - - -
February 15, 2001
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alberto Martinez-Juarez, German Pacheco-Soria, Avelino De
Santiago-Floriano, and Cesar Romero-Ramos (collectively the
Defendants) appeal their sentences following their guilty plea
convictions for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The Defendants argue that their sentences
should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a). The Defendants acknowledge that their argument
is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224
(1998), but they seek to preserve the issue for Supreme Court

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 00-50480
c/w Nos. 00-50484 &
00-50626 & 00-50887
- 3 -
review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348
(2000).
The Defendants’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres,
523 U.S. at 235.
The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of
filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks
that the judgments of the district court be affirmed and that an
appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

-- 3 of 3 --