Case ID: f-appx_258/html/0666-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. Armando ARMENDARIZ-MORENO, also known as Armando Moreno-Ortiz, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-40225
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 12, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Timoteo E. Gomez, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Armando Armendariz-Moreno (Armendariz) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony.

On appeal, Armendariz challenges the district court’s characterization of his prior Texas conviction of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as an aggravated felony for sentencing purposes. Armendariz concedes that this issue is foreclosed, but he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for Supreme Court review in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004). As Armendariz concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See Brieva-Perez v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 356, 360-61 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez, 169 F.3d 217, 219-20 (5th Cir.1999).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Armendariz also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.