United States v. Gomez-Gonzalez

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 22, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-50651
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PEDRO GOMEZ-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-205-ALL-PRM
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pedro Gomez-Gonzalez appeals the sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gomez-Gonzalez argues that in light of recent
Supreme Court precedent the sentencing provisions set forth in
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional and that Almendarez-
Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), should be
overruled.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-50651
-2-
Gomez-Gonzalez argues that the rulings in Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 124
S. Ct. 2531 (2004), cast doubt upon the continued validity of
Almendarez-Torres.
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). The Court’s decision in Blakely, 124 S. Ct. at
2537, and more recently in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.
738, 756 (2005), also did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. This
court therefore 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.

-- 2 of 2 --