United States v. Scott

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31266
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CEDRICK SCOTT,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CR-5-ALL-B
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cedrick Scott appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and
carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking
offense. Scott argues that the district court erred in denying
him a two-point reduction in his offense level for acceptance of
responsibility. Although Scott pleaded guilty, in his interview
with the probation officer, he denied that the gun and drugs
belonged to him, did not accept responsibility for his actions,

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-31266
-2-
and did not express any remorse. Therefore, the district court
did not err in denying him a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. See United States v. Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 180
(5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 121 (5th
Cir. 1995).
Scott argues that 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), under which his
sentence was enhanced based on his prior convictions, violates
the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as construed in Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Because he did not raise this issue
in the district court, review is limited to plain error.
See United States v. Dupre, 117 F.3d 810, 817 (5th Cir. 1997).
Scott acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-
Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to
preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not
overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90.
This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the
Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” United States
v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531
U.S. 1202 (2001)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --