United States v. Salazar-De Licon

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50187
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ESTHER SALAZAR-DE LICON,
also known as Esther Licon,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-01-CR-1469-ALL-DB
--------------------
August 21, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Esther Salazar-De Licon appeals the sentence imposed
following her guilty plea conviction of being found in the United
States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. She
contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the
two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a). Salazar-De Licon complains that her sentence was
improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on
her prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 02-50187
-2-
She argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process
Clause. Alternatively, Salazar-De Licon contends that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses.
She argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in
her increased sentence was an element of the offense under
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in her
indictment.
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.
Salazar-De Licon 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), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). 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 the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an
appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 02-50187
-3-
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

-- 3 of 3 --