Case ID: f-appx_228/html/0489-01.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. Carmen Maritza DIAZ-BEARD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-40393
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 17, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carmen Maritza Diaz-Beard (Diaz) appeals the 41-month term of imprisonment imposed upon her guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation. She contends that her sentence is unreasonable because of the deference given by this court to sentences within a properly-calculated guidelines range. Specifically, she challenges the presumption of reasonableness applied to guidelines sentences, see United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006), and our precedent forbidding a sentencing court from imposing a nonguidelines sentence based solely upon a policy disagreement with a sentence enhancement recommended by the Guidelines. See United States v. Tzep-Mejia, 461 F.3d 522, 527 (5th Cir.2006). Conceding that her arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent, Diaz seeks only to preserve them for appeal.

Diaz further asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) cause the statute to be unconstitutional. This argument is also foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Diaz contends that AlmendarezTorres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Diaz properly concedes that the argument is foreclosed and raises it here to preserve it for further review.

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.