Case ID: f-appx_147/html/0432-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Geronimo Fernando HUEZO-FRANCO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-40938.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 9, 2005.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Hill Peck, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Gerónimo Fernando Huezo-Franco appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation.

Huezo argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1826(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Huezo’s argument concerning the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is, as he concedes, foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 277-78 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 253, - L.Ed.2d - (2005).

Huezo also contends that his sentence is improper under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He concedes that the plain-error standard of review applies. Huezo has not shown that the district court would have imposed a different sentence under an advisory sentencing scheme. Thus, Huezo has not shown plain error in connection with his sentence. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600-01 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 464, — L.Ed.2d - (2005) (No. 05-6242).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.